Max titled his missive on this subject "The Plan Boss, the Plan" as an effort to introduce some humor. I am not humor-impaired, but it took me a couple of days to get it. The problem is that I'm TV-deprived, especially with respect to the 1970s and early 1980s. I never saw the "Brady Bunch," "the Partridge Family," or "Fantasy Island." It is to the last that Max refers: there's a little fellow, whose name I've forgotten, who yells "The Plane, Boss, the Plane!" To which his boss, a mathematician if my memory serves me well, responds: "The Hyperplane, Underling, the Hyperplane!" Humor aside, I am a bit confused by Tom Walker's comments. First he comes off somewhat nihilistic, knocking the role of reason. Then, in another missive, he's criticizing those in favor of "democratic planning" (including me?) for not advocating the expropriation of the means of production and the dictator- ship of the proletariat. I'll assume that it's I who's the confused one rather than it being Tom, since I don't have copies of his messages here to figure them out. But let me make one thing perfectly clear (to quote old Nix, the late US Prez): -- we can't have "democratic planning" without the expropriation of the means of production from the capitalist class and the abolition of the latter (as a class). You need socialism, not social democracy. -- we can't have "democratic planning" or the expropriation of the M of P without the D of P. Oops, that's two things made perfectly clear. On the D of P (as the Maoists used to call the dictatorship of the proletariat), exhaustive research by Hal Draper and, somewhat independently, by Richard Hunt indicates that when Marx used the phrase "the D of P," it basically meant workers' democracy (a workers' state), since he viewed _all_ states as dictatorships. (The word "dictatorship" did not have its nasty 20th century meaning as yet. Later Marxists, as Draper documents, changed the meaning of the phrase "D of P.") That state, like all states, is repressive, especially toward efforts to re-establish capitalism. To my mind, it should also repress efforts to create new classes (such as the CP-centered class of bureaucrats in the old USSR). Anyway, in my discussion of the ins and outs of democratic planning, I was assuming that the expropriators had indeed been expropriated and by a mass movement of self-organized democratic grass-roots organizations (in short, workers' democracy) rather than by some elite that claims to be acting "in the name of the proletariat" without being held responsible by the folks they claim to represent. Again, I was discussing a transitional kind of planning, one that would work to allow workers to control the economy they officially own and to allow a certain amount of normalcy in order to start the building of a complete democratically-planned economy. Further, as I said before, I am not presenting "recipes for the kitchens of the future" as much as ideas to be considered by workers when (and if) they take power. Anway, let's get back to Max: He is >>still utterly unconvinced, at any rate, of the following, which is what I think we have been arguing about: >>* that democracy facilitates planning (which is different from the proposition that whatever planning we have *ought* to be informed by democratic participation);<< For your consideration, one way to organize planning that would allow democracy to facilitate it: 1) democratic control over the enterprise helps keep the managers honest and also promotes morale and thus productivity. The former (say, embodied in the ability to fire managers) encourages the rank and file to trust the managers in their dealings with the planners. The latter encourages production, which makes the planning process easier (as opposed to the "economics of scarcity" which reigned under the old USSR's planning scheme). 2) in addition to various generally-accepted rules and regulations which would apply to all enterprises in order to encourage the communication of accurate information to the planners, it seems reasonable to presume that a representative of the planners (and local government, feminists, environ- mentalists, etc.) would be on the "board of directors" of each enterprise. The co-op would have the right to appeal the decision of who would be appointed to the board of directors if they didn't like who they got. 3) complementary to (2): groups of co-ops would elect (and have the right to recall) delegates to the planning board; in addition, all individuals would vote to elect the at-large members of the planning board. These too, would be subject to recall. 4) parts (2) and (3) together recall the phenomenon of "interlocking directorates" that allow capitalists to work together. (This interlocking includes the government.) In order for this to work for the proletariat, we also need to have a basic consensus in society. That can't be presumed in the abstract. But we're not going to see an expropriation of the M of P -- or a D of P -- if there isn't already a mass movement of insurgent forces that shares some kind of basic consensus. Further, we won't have the capitalists encouraging divisions in the working class in order to protect the stability of capitalism. The government can also encourage greater horizontal unity of enterprises of different industries and areas in order to build such a consensus. Having an appeals court for settling disputes amongst enterprises and between the planners and the enterprises helps. 5) In addition, the salaries of the planners and plant managers should be limited to some multiple (3?) of the average worker's annual wage. This would, among other things, undermine the incentive for panners and managers to cling to power at all costs and lower the social distance between them and the rank and file. BTW, this kind of thing is not utopian. The US-based United Automobile Workers' union used to have this kind of rule. 6) all of these elements are made easier with simpler and more automatic methods for making planning decisions (of the sort that Albert & Hahnel write about). Note that all of these should work together. Once the system starts working, there is a good chance that the elements will reinforce each other over time. >>* that individuals and organizations will act much more selflessly under socialist democracy;<< I wasn't proposing or predicting that people or organizations act more "selflessly." Selflessness or altruism are not especially admirable (and it's extremely obnoxious when the US's fearless leaders advocate selflessness & volunteerism as a solution to the problems they've helped create). I don't trust the assertion that someone is altruistic; in fact, as Christopher Hitchens documents, even Mother Teresa ain't no Mother Teresa. If socialism is about self-denial, who wants it? It's true that we in the advanced countries probably have to make sacrifices to solve our abuse of the environment and the rest of the world, but that's not the final goal of socialism. Besides, if run right, a socialist economy can unleash human creativity in a way that allows easier solutions to these problems. I was proposing and predicting that socialist democracy allows people to act on the social values that they cannot act on when atomized, when relating to each other only through the market. Rather than abandoning self-interest, I hope that socialist democracy would allow people a more _mature_ conception of self-interest. >>* that democratic or un-democratic planning is sufficiently practical (not absolutely practical) to justify much interest for political reasons, including visionary, long-term ones.<< I doubt that I can convince you of this, because we are dealing with hypotheticals. The key issue is why we _need_ planning. Rather than repeat this, I'll appeal to the collective memory banks of pen-l. In the part of his missive where he dredges up old pen-l messages, Max asks: >>HOW MUCH money, who decides, and how?<< and >>Who says what costs are?<< I answered> Good question, even though it goes beyond the original issue (i.e., Max's implication of the impossibility of democratic planning). The general principles of what determines the costs would or (or should) be decided upon democratically. The planners would then decide how these principles work _in practice_. The top planners should be elected (and subject to recall) in order to make sure that they obey the popular will. Albert & Hahnel's planning scheme also tries to automate the process so that human decisions play a minimal role. < Max ripostes: >>Is there anyone else here who agrees that this paragraph resembles a plate of spaghetti? If not, I promise to seek professional psycho-analytic help.<< It seems to me it's more like lasagna. For clarification, see the beginning of the current message. BTW, I think you should avoid psychoanalysts (i.e., Freudians and their spawn). Try an M.A. psychologist. Or co-counselling, if it's still around. It's free. If you want drugs, see a psychiatrist. ;-) In closing, Max writes: >> My point in noting the invocation of markets to distribute consumer goods is that my questions about allocation have been met, but not answered, by the use of market devices or democratic procedures, neither of which contains any hint of the content of a plan, much less why said content would be commendable on grounds other than that the people somehow or other decided it. The buried implication seems to be that unbridled democracy is a good, in and of itself or for its own sake. To me such a premise is moralistic and ideological, rather than analytical.<< If you don't think democracy is good in and of itself, you're not much of a socialist. As for "unbridled," I believe that it's for the people to decide how to bridle their democracy (and I already explained how they are likely to decide to limit it). We can't rely on some elite to do it for them, since the elite could (and likely will) set themselves up as a privileged class. The point of planning is to allow more complete democracy. -- Jim Devine
