robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Although I agree with much of what you say, Robbo, I do not agree that global level decisions will constitute a very, very few issues.
In terms of practical issues such as power generation, building of infrastructure, food distribution, etc. I would think that only a global level of debate and decision making will be effective in this area.Bijou
I was referring specifically to examples of “direct democracy”. Even a single global plebiscite is an absolutely monumental undertaking, when you think about it, given everything it entails in terms of expediting a result – formulating the resolution to be voted on, preparing the vote, disseminating the information and collating the results. Nearly 8 billion voters is an awful lot of voters!!!
It is for this reason that I think direct democracy at the global level will likely be reserved for only a tiny handful of globally significant decisions and there is also the question of the enforceability of such decisions to take into account. The time it takes to organise a global plebiscite is another factor, quite apart from the logistics. Many decisions particularly at the microlevel cant wait for months and months and so by their very nature exclude themselves from a global decision-making process. They have to be globally significant to truly qualify at all. A package of measures to combat climate change might be a good example.
I dont doubt that there would be decisions at the global level made by global bodies – I gave the example of the FAO – and though such bodies would doubtless be subject to democratic scrutiny, this is not the same thing as direct democracy which is what I was really talk about. Similarly with discussion being worldwide. To an extent this already happens via the social meida, newspapers , academic journals and so on
So, ‘decentralisation? Fine. ‘Localism’ Fine. ‘Individual Choice’? Fine. ‘Polycentres’? Fine.
But ‘decentral’, ‘local’, ‘individual choice’ and ‘polycentres’ don’t have the final say. Humanity does. And its political method is democracy.OK so FINALLY, FINALLY FINALLY and at long last I have got a clear statement from you acknowledging that socialism will be a polycentric system of planning!!!!! This is what I have been trying all this time to extract from you and now finally have you answered the question directly without resorting to vague references to the social nature of production (true but not relevant to the question asked) and the like. That’s all I wanted to hear from you and to be honest it has been like trying to extract blood from a stone, LBird. Despite what you say that over the years, I’ve answered this, time and time again, you haven’t actually – not explicitly. This is the very first time you’ve done so explicitly. Its a breakthrough!
Good. So having finally overcome this hurdle in our discussion, with this explicit acknowledgement of the necessarily polycentric nature of decision-making in socialism, a large chunk of my objections to what you have been saying , or rather appearing to have been saying all along, now falls away We can move on to finesse our understanding of the democratic process in socialism
Let me start by saying I do NOT think that
socialism will involve 7 billion sovereign bodies (ie. each individual, doing their ‘own thing’, without ‘the nanny state’ (as individualists characterise any ‘social authority’), untrammelled ‘freedom’).
Individuals doing their own thing is only ever a matter of degree in my book. There will be such thing as absolutely sovereign individuals able to do whatever they want. That is a caricature. The freedom to do what you want has to be balanced by democracy which as I have always said will be play a much large role in socialism than is possible under capitalism but which will itself confront its own outer limits. Needless that will not involve a state in socialism let alone a “nanny state”
I dont disagree with you observation:
These objections, both from within/below the body and without/above the body, must be resolved by a body that encompasses all the disputants. But this might be a regional body, and another region objects to that region’s decision. On so on, wider and wider.
In fact, this follows the same logic I outlined earlier – that the need for democracy or democratic decision-making ONLY arises in the context where there is dispute between individuals or social bodies. This is why I say the great bulk of “economic decisions” in socialism – such as what I consume or what work I chose to engage in – are not really “dispute related” and so do not need to invoke democratic decision making at all which would both pointless and bureaucratically wasteful
Where a dispute arises (typically in the case of joint decision-making) then yes as you rightly suggest the democratic resolution must be accomplished by a body that encompasses all the disputants. If there is a dispute within a local community over the proposed location of a community hall then this needs to be resolved by a democratic vote by all members of the local community. Similarly, if there is a dispute between two local communities over the proposed location of major piece of infrastructure such as a road or hydroelectric dam then this has ro be resolved democratically at the appropriate level encompassing all the disputants – the region in this case
All this is eminently sensible and in fact LBird is clearly outlined in the SPGB pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative (in case you haven’t read it) which refers to a spatial hierarchy of decision-making – local, regional and global.
The ultimately port of call so to speak is global , humanity as a whole . As you say humanity has the “final say” in such matters. However, what I want you to recognise is that in practice there are very very few issues that will ever reach this global level of decision-making. Because the very nature of decision-making at this level is such a monumental undertaking, necessarily this would restrict the number of decisions that could be taken at this level to a tiny handful. Only very important, globally applicable, decisions, in other words
Of course you could have global bodies like the current FAO acting within a devolved framework and making decisions on behalf of humanity. Such bodies need to be subject to scrutiny and democratic control. But as far as direct democracy is concerned only a very small number of decisions could or need be resolved democratically at this level. For example, a global vote on package of measures to tackle climate change
However, as far as 99% plus of the decisions that need to be made in socialism are concerned, these will never, and cannot possibly ever, reach this global level of decision making. Nor is there any reason why they should. They can be democratically resolved at the lower levels of decision-making such as the region of the local community in the way you yourself suggest.
Furthermore, I also insist (and I believe that I’m following Marx here) that ‘the world working class’ must politically organise on a democratic basis, and that by their own self-emancipation, they themselves will determine ‘material conditions’, ‘specialists’, ‘science’… and all other social products, like physics, maths, logic, truth, etc.
This is not the issue LBird. The SPGB fully accepts the need for the world’s working class to politically organise on a democratic basis and in doing so, democratically lay the foundations of a post capitalist world. The argument is rather about the nature of the post capitalist world they will set up
On the face of it, you seem to be arguing that, in this post capitalist world, all decisions relating to production will be channelled through one single global organ of decision-making. Local communities and individuals will NOT be able to make decisions on their own. You, for example, as a individual will not be able to decide what kind of work you wanted to do. You would be told what to do in accordance with Society’s Grand Plan and assigned a particular task and hours of work, which “society” has seen fit to assign you after “democratically” consulting everyone (nearly 8 billion people)
I’m sorry if you take offence at me dismissing this is idea as utter nonsense. But that is what it is, I’m afraid. This is not intended as a personal insult so please dont take it the wrong way….
Even if the world’s working class wanted to introduce this particular model of planning – unicentric as opposed to polycentric planning – and democratically voted for it, it would not be able to. Its on a par with democratically voting to abolish the law of gravity, frankly.
The frustrating thing about you, LBird, is that every time I press you to clarify whether or not you actually endorse this particular model of literal society wide planning, you equivocate and revert back to vague references to Marx about “social production” as if this settles the matter. But I’m afraid it does not settle the matter. In any case this appeal to the authority cuts no ice with me. If Marx did actually advocate society wide planning along the above lines then I would say without hesitation, that he was talking complete bunkum. Marx is not some sort of god whose every word we must hang on to out of some kind of religious awe. He made mistakes like everyone else
As a matter of fact I dont think Marx did advocate society wide planning and particularly after the Paris Commune he more explicitly identified with a decentralised model of socialist society, as do I . His views on the division of labour clearly demonstrate , as I pointed out, that he fundamentally favoured the idea of individual choice as integral to the very nature of a socialist society itself. The freedom to choice what kind of work you do goes hand in hand with the voluntaristic nature of labour under socialism. Its got sod all to do with “bourgeois individualism”
So I ask you one more time – do you favour a polycentric system of planning for socialism or a unicentric system. Could you please answer this question directly and without equivocation so we can draw a line and move on to a more productive discussion about the nature of democracy in socialism
Indeed, you have, robbo.
That’s what I’ve always accused you of doing.
Whereas, I have been vociferously supporting the right of social individuals.LOL LBird So Marx too must count as a bourgeois individualist, according to you. I quote again from that famous passage in the German Ideology:
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
Marx is very clearly advocating that INDIVIDUALS should be able to chose what sort of contribution they make to a socialist society. That in your book makes him a bourgeois individualist too. Which shows you dont understand what “bourgeois individualism” means. Being able, or wanting, to choose does not make you a bourgeois individualist. Individuality is not the same thing as individualism and there is always a two way interrelationship between the individual and society which pristine bourgeois individualist theory denies (hence the 17th/18th myth of the “social contract”). Holism which is effectively what you advocate (there is no such thing as individuals) is just as suspect as individualism (there is no such thing as society)
The fact is you dont seem to want anyone or any entity smaller than the totality of human society – the-social-producers-in-general , nearly 8 billion of them – to be able to make any decisions of their own accord. Every one and every entity must subordinate themselves to, and subsume themselves within, the General Will, according to you. You want to eliminate the very thing that makes democracy possible and necessary – differences of opinion
Not only is this utterly impossible – it is clearest definition of insanity to suggest that nearly 8 billion inhabitants should democratically participate in making the billions of decisions that need to be made every day to run a modern system of production – but even if we went only a quarter way down that road to utter madness, the outcome would be the most complete expression of a system of totalitarian fascism I can think of
I still dont seriously believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you are spouting LBird. You have never once attempted to grasp the insuperable practical problems that the concept of society wide planning would actually entail even if in theory it could be implemented. You forever skirt around the issue and, that in itself is vey revealing.
I think you are basically just clinging to a form of words, a mode of expression that appears to come across as “Marxist” because that fits in with your prejudices (“Im a democratic communist” is your constant refrain). But you dont seem willing to go beyond the words to look at the actual arguments. Pity.
Only a society in which we, humanity, democratically determine what ‘The Golden Mean Says’, will equate to ‘democratic socialism’.
robbo simply wants an elite in political control of the vast majority. No doubt, they’ll be called ‘The Specialists’. And they’ll have ‘Special Needs’. The need for armed ‘Specialists’, to enforce The Word of the majesty, ‘Golden Mean’.This is nonsense LBird. I was very clear in stipulating what I meant by the “Golden Mean” (a term which, BTW Alan, I think goes back to the Ancient Greeks) in the context of this discussion. I meant having a degree of democratic decision-making that falls somewhere in between “too much” and “too little”. That’s all.
You LBird apparently want a world in which the totality of production decisions will be made by the total population of “social producers”. That’s obviously absurd and completely unworkable. There are billions of decisions that need to be made each and every day and there is clearly no way in which these could be handled except through disaggregation, delegation and devolution. That is, by setting up a polycentric system of decision-making which enables , for example, local communities and individuals to make the great bulk of those billions of daily decisions that need to be made in any kind of advanced social system.
That is the only realistic and practical option on the table. Yet you seem to be opposed to the very principle of polycentric decision-making which by implication means you seem to support the principle of unicentric planning instead (I say “seem to” because I honestly dont think you understand the implicaions of what you are saying at all). In apparently supporting the idea of society-wide central planning – one single centre and one single giant plan for the whole of society – you are actually supporting something that will absolutely crush and destroy any vestige of democracy whatsoever
The great irony is that the very thing you advocate – society wide planning – will absolutely ensure the emergence of an “elite in political control of the vast majority” . The logistical impossibility of securing the democratic participation of everyone in the BILLIONS of daily decisions that need to be made will inescapably mean an elite taking over and making the decisions “on behalf of the social producers”. There is no way round this.
I find it a little strange then that you should say, “Robbo simply wants an elite in political control of the vast majority” when, for example I have been vociferously supporting the right of the individual in socialism to freely chose , as Marx recommended, what work they did whereas you by implication want to deny that individual the right to make any such choice and impose a compulsory division of labour on him or her from above in accordance with the single giant plan. Similarly you are the one who talked about “disbanding” local communities and negating their ablity to make local decisions in the face of some vague totalitarian notion of “democracy” which obliterates any opposition to the supposed “will of the people”.
That’s not democracy LBrd. That is the very opposite of democracy that you are espousing but frustratingly you can’t seem to see this!
Somebody sent me this link with regard to the climate change movement and Greta. I dont know if this would be of any use to any of the speakers at this event. Would you be able to forward it on, Dave?
If there is any dispute between “local communities/individuals/particular spatial levels of decision making/polycentric [bodies]/decentralised [bodies]”, who will have the power to override either/both/all the disputants, and, if necessary, disband a disputant?
LBird , it is very significant that you can even talk of “disbanding a disputant” in this context. So in your view this could mean a local community in socialism being stripped of the power to make any local decision that affects local people. I find that actually quite a sinister train of thought and it begs the question of how this is ever going to be enforced in a socialist society, anyway.
More to the point it implies a separation between the “social-producers-in-general” and local communities in socialism, thereby overlooking that every social producer is at the same time also a member of some local community. There is no separation just as there is no separation between producers and consumers in socialism. Producers are consumers and vice versa. It is capitalism that generates these kind of artificial divisions, not socialism.
Of course, I dont deny there will occasional conflicts and tensions in socialism between different communities and between different spatial levels of planning – local, regional and global. But that in itself implies a polycentric system of decision-making which you seem to be intent on suppressing. In effect you are saying that a local community should say nothing if the regional authority has decided to build a whopping great nuclear power station in its backyard because, well, that is democracy.
But that is not democracy! Democracy is not about submitting to some higher authority dressed up as the voice of the “social-producers-in-general”. Rather democracy is about resolving conflicts that arise precisely out of and presuppose, a polycentric system of decision-making in the first place which, as I said, you seem intent upon denying or suppressing. This is why your whole approach is based on a fundamental contradiction. You want democracy but you dont want the material circumstances that call forth democracy and make it necessary.
Of course democracy means the will of a majority must hold sway in the end but that does not mean “disbanding” the minority, for heaven’s sake, with all the authoritarian anti-socialist connotations this holds. Normally the majority will seek to appease or make some concessions to the minority. People have to live together in a democratic society, after all. This would be particularly true of socialism which will need to focus on building consensus, not deepening divisions
Moreover, and this is a point you overlook, most decisions made by a local community would NOT, in the normal run of things, come into conflict with another community or with some higher regional authority. Though the decisions will doubtless be made democratically within the local community , there is no conflict involved as far as these decisions concern other communities. Therefore there is no need to invoke “democratic decision making” with respect to these other communities.
Democracy only becomes relevant where significant differences of opinion or interests arise. The great bulk of decisions made in a socialist will not be of this nature. So to give the example that Marx offered which I referred to in my previous post – what kind of work I do is a decision I alone will make in a socialist society. Marx hated the compulsory division of labour, as he saw it, in capitalism. He wanted the individual to be free to express her own creativity in whatever she chose in socialism. It benefits everyone to allow individuals to chose to do what they most want to do.
This, as I said, is another example of the need to place limits on democracy in order to ensure it is most effective. Too much “democratic decision-making” stifles a society and paradoxically undermines democracy itself
In this, as in other matters, there is always a “Golden Mean”
Well, since Marx argued that humanity creates its own ‘entire output of global production’, the most fundamental political question is ‘who should control that output?’
It seems to me that Marx also argued for ‘democracy’ within our ‘social production’, and that particular political mode of social production would be called ‘communism’.
LBird
I earlier asked you: “are you saying that humanity in its entirety should democratically determine the entire output of global production…” Its seems to me that what you say above is simply evading the question
Its seems to me that what you say above is simply evading the question
Yes production today is social production but it does not follow therefore that the whole of society should or can democratically control the whole of production. This is where you constantly err. You don’t seem to understand the implications of what you are actually proposing…..
An example. You earlier said “I don’t regard ‘democratic’ as meaning ‘centralised’.” Now you appear to be saying that, since humanity as a whole produces the entire output of society, humanity “as a whole” should democratically control the whole of production. Not bits of humanity controlling bits of the apparatus of production but the whole of humanity controlling the entire apparatus of production because it is “social”.
So you are actually proposing there should be one single centre of decision-making in which everyone in the world is a participant which democratically decides on everything that is produced, right? Actually, contrary to what you earlier said, you now seem to be advocating the most extreme form of centralisation imaginable – i.e. society-wide planning – in which there is just one planning centre effectively for the whole of society.
I probably don’t need to explain to you why this is completely ridiculous – just on the grounds of the sheer logistics of decision-making alone in a world in which there are probably billions of decisions that need to be made each and every day. Instead, what I propose to do is tackle head on your argument about democracy and your naïve suggestion that the form of democracy should equate with the social nature of production.
Like you I fully support the concept of democratic control of production. I believe this will be a much more potent and salient aspect of life in socialism than it ever could be in capitalism.
However, unlike you, I say there are necessarily limits to how far you can extend democratic decision-making even in a socialist society. In fact, paradoxically if you do not set limits you risk destroying the very thing you cherish most – democracy itself
You do not wish to set any limits except those of the whole of society itself. i.e. society wide planning. I suggest to you that this will spell the complete annihilation of democracy in practice. In practice, what would happen in the absence of society as a whole being able to decide on anything for sheer logistical reasons – except maybe a handful of global plebiscites in the course of a year – is that all de facto day-to-day decision-making would be taken over by a tiny elite supposedly deciding things on behalf of society as a whole
The limits you need to set on democracy in order to ensure its optimality are those to do with the spatial structure of decision-making and those to do with the role of individual choice
The first is obvious. You have to disaggregate decision-making and assign particular decisions to particular spatial levels of decision making. Local communities, for example, are best placed to make decisions that are essentially of a local nature. Yet you have never once conceded that in a socialist society there would be such a thing as a local communities making local decisions because this fundamentally undermines your whole thesis on social production being democratically controlled by society as a whole.
Secondly, there has be substantial scope in a socialist society for individuals to make choices which do not require the formal stamp of democratic approval. Examples would be lifestyle choices, consumer choices and choices regarding what work you do. Yes, society has a say in determining the parameters in which such choices are made but, necessarily, it is the individual who makes the choice in these instances.
You are fond of quoting Marx in support of your arguments but actually Marx would be strongly opposed to the arguments you present. Marx held that the free development of each individual was the condition of the free development of all in socialism/communism
For example there is that famous quote from the German Ideology:
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
What Marx was asserting was the need for the individual to be able to choose (“just as I have a mind”), what form of activity she engaged in rather than submit to the compulsory division of labour applicable in capitalism. What Marx was trying to underscore with this rather colourful example of his was the essentially voluntaristic nature of labour in socialism.
This would not be possible under your system of society wide planning which would require everyone to submit to the task they has been assigned by society “as a whole” in order for the single giant plan that you envisage the whole of society having “democratically” decided upon beforehand
LBird – again all I want to know from you is 1) what is your proposed structure of democratic decision-making in socialism and 2) what is the scope of this democratic decision-making. We both accept the need for democratic decision-making in socialism but we appear to differ in how we visualise this being organised
I understand completely the point you are making about social production but it does not follow from that that everyone in the world has to be involved in all decisions relating to global social production, does it? In fact that is not remotely possible as you know. That is why I have asked you whether you accept in principle that many – indeed, the great bulk of – production decisions will be localised and limited to local communities/production units and whether you accept in principle that many decisions that may well have indirect consequences for social production dont really even need to be subjected to democratic decision-making. For example you dont need to get a democratic mandate from your local community to allow you to eat cornflakes for breakfast instead of porridge, wear a particular kind of clothing to work or use a particular mode of transport to get there…
Could you answer these specific points I raise so we can get a clearer idea of your model of democratic decision-making in socialism
I’d give the political answer that ‘humanity’ is the ‘who’, and that ‘democracy’ is the ‘how’.
So just to be clear here LBird – are you saying that humanity in its entirety should democratically determine the entire output of global production – that is, all the inputs and outputs that make up the global system of production within a single giant global plan?
If this is not what you mean by democratic control of production could you please explain what you do mean? What will the structure of democratic decision-making look like? Will there be localised democratic decision-making for example?
You define ‘wide’ as ‘central’, whereas I define ‘wide’ as ‘democratic’.
I dont follow your reasoning at all, LBird
I have given you a clear definition of what I mean by society wide planning. I am talking about a very particular concept where society as a whole or its representatives determines the total pattern of output via a single gigantic plan covering all the inputs and outputs of the economy. This is what I am opposing not democratic planning per se. I am actually in favour of democratic planning but in the context of polycentric and largely decentralised model of planning.
To compound matters you earlier said “I don’t regard ‘democratic’ as meaning ‘centralised’”. Indeed – my very point! Society wide centralised planning in the above sense could not be democratic in the least let along practical
I don’t regard ‘democratic’ as meaning ‘centralised’.
To me, a democratic communist, if ‘produced overall’ and ‘society wide planning’ are democratic, then they are not ‘centralised’.Sorry but this makes no sense. Society wide planning is by definition centralised. It means the elimination of polycentric planning and its replacement by unicentric planning in which society “as a whole” gets to plan production “as a whole”. That means a single planning body and a single plan issuing from this body to determine the overall shape or pattern of production. Of course, the idea is an abstraction or ideal type which is never going to be realised for practical reasons but that is besides the point. This discussion is about what constitutes society wide planning. You cant have “society wide planning” and also have, for example, numerous planning bodies each formulating their own plans, such as local communities. Because in this case it is not “society” that is doing the planning by which I take to mean global socialist society but rather the various local communities referred to. Meaning it is a polycentric model of planning with a plurality of plans that spontaneously interact and mesh with each other in much the same way that a market economy operates except that in socialism there will be no market whatsoever.
You are, in effect, defining any ‘democratic’ decision that clashes with, and overrides, an individual’s opinion, as ‘centralised’ and ‘single’.
No absolutely not, LBird. That is not what I am saying at all. I am referring quite specifically to the ideal type that is called “society wide planning”. I am definitely not referring to a polycentric model of planning which I and indeed the SPGB supports. (See our pamphlet, Socialism as a practical alternative). Of course there will be occasions when democratic decisions will (quite rightly) override the views of individuals. The decision will be centralised only in relation to the body making the decision itself which may very well just be the local community but this is nothing to do with the concept of society wide planning as defined above. Moreover a lot of decisions dont need to be subjected to democratic decision-making at all – you wouldn’t want “society” or even your local community to vote on what you should eat for breakfast or what clothes you should wear today, would you? The need for democracy arises only in the context of joint decision-making where these is a potential conflict of opinion or interest involved
Saying society is democratic and saying that society “democratically decides” what is produced are two very different things Alan . The latter definitely does seems to refer to the idea of society as a whole deciding on what is produced i.e. society wide planning
All I am saying is we need to be careful about how we phrase our ideas so as to avoid any misundrstanding
Yeah, ‘self’ refers to the ‘subject’ that creates, and the creating subject for Marx was humanity (ie. ‘social individuals’, not ‘biological individuals’ as for bourgeois ideology), and any ‘defining’ by the creating subject must be democratic.
Within democratic communism, ‘self-defined needs’ will be determined democratically.I think the concept of “self-defined” needs to be properly understood in the context of how individuals in a proximate sense would appropriate their means of subsistence. That is to say, they would formally have “free access” to goods and services. Meaning there would be no quid pro quo exchange involved at all. So as an individual there would be no need for me to exchange a sum of money or a labour voucher in order to obtain a loaf of bread
This is all that self-defined needs means. It is a reference to the mode of appropriation – nothing more – and it is an attempt to differentiate free access from all forms of rationing. The distinct danger of rationing, even of an egalitarian kind, is that it can lead to corruption and the emergence of an overseeing powerful elite.
In no sense is the concept of self defined needs incompatible with your notion of the “social individual”. The latter is a reference to what shapes our perception of what our needs are which is of course social whereas the former refers simply to the mode of appropriation. In fact this very idea of the social individual in your sense supports the argument in favour of dispensing with rationing and establishing free access. Quite simply we wont need rationing in general (though I dont rule out limited rationing of certain particular kinds of items) because the kind of society we are talking about would be precisely one most conducive to responsible – and responsive – consumer behaviour.
Finally we must careful about how we phrase the argument that, in socialism, “society will democratically decide what is produced” even if individuals have free access to what is produced. This could be very misleading. I will argue to the contrary that socialist society will not and cannot decide what is produced overall because that implies centralised “society wide” planning and a single gigantic plan which is absolutely impractical and completely incompatible with the nature of socialism itself.
It is far better and much more accurate in my opinion to say that socialist society will decide on the priorities of production rather than the overall pattern of production itself . This would allow for the existence of some form of feedback mechanism – a self regulating system of stock control – without which any kind of advanced system of production would be literally impossible
Marshall Sahlins in Stone Age Economics
For there are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be “easily satisfied” either by producing much or desiring little. The familiar conception, the Galbraithean way, makes assumptions peculiarly appropriate to market economies: that man’s wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas his means are limited, although improvable: thus, the gap between means and ends can be narrowed by industrial productivity, at least to the point that “urgent goods” become plentiful. But there is also a Zen road to affluence, departing from premises somewhat different from our own: that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate. Adopting the Zen strategy, a people can enjoy an unparalleled material plenty-with a low standard of living. That, I think, describes the hunters.
(https://libcom.org/files/Sahlins%20-%20Stone%20Age%20Economics.pdf)
Why cannot socialism be a combination of both – a sort of dialectical “interpenetration of the opposites” so to speak? The impetus to restrain consumption will come not only from a concern for the ecological consequences of untrammelled consumerism but also from the realisation that we all depend on each other for our common wellbeing. That is a question of ethics, values and empathy
