It is important to keep in mind that there is no one way to do socialism / planned economy. Even in the soviet union, the way the economy was planned was vastly different throughout it’s lifetime. So take everything you read with a grain of salt, any theoretically designed planned economy will not survive colliding with reality. That doesn’t mean that a planned economy cannot exist, it’s just that the implementation of it will depend on the exact time and place. And we haven’t seen a large scale centrally planned economy since the USSR, so there is very little practical experience to base any theory on.
Paul Cockshott tries to describe an such an ideal system in Towards a New Socialism (fyi don’t read his non economy opinions, he’s a transphobe of the UK variety). It’s an interesting thought experiment, although theory heavy. I also second what others commenters recommended.
PC also thinks England went through brief periods of socialism and that accumulation of wealth (he felt there was not much) from the slave trade did not contribute signficantly to England’s industrial revolution. I have since watched and read everything he has to offer with a critical eye, and may consider writing a critique on his past work sometime in the future (I will need to re-read them with a better dialectical materialist lens and I suspect in doing so it will bolster my own understanding of theory).
I wouldn’t be surprised tbh. I don’t revere his economic analysis or anything. It’s just hard to find anyone at all working on economic planning theory.
The last video I saw was laughable - it was a junior doctor presentation on the recent strikes uploaded/promoted on his channel who accused the doctors of being reactionary because they supported trans rights (along with some other patsoc nonsense that service workers are not proletriat because of unproductive labour ie rehashing-baristas-aren’t-workers argument)
It is important to keep in mind that there is no one way to do socialism / planned economy. Even in the soviet union, the way the economy was planned was vastly different throughout it’s lifetime. So take everything you read with a grain of salt, any theoretically designed planned economy will not survive colliding with reality. That doesn’t mean that a planned economy cannot exist, it’s just that the implementation of it will depend on the exact time and place. And we haven’t seen a large scale centrally planned economy since the USSR, so there is very little practical experience to base any theory on.
Paul Cockshott tries to describe an such an ideal system in Towards a New Socialism (fyi don’t read his non economy opinions, he’s a transphobe of the UK variety). It’s an interesting thought experiment, although theory heavy. I also second what others commenters recommended.
PC also thinks England went through brief periods of socialism and that accumulation of wealth (he felt there was not much) from the slave trade did not contribute signficantly to England’s industrial revolution. I have since watched and read everything he has to offer with a critical eye, and may consider writing a critique on his past work sometime in the future (I will need to re-read them with a better dialectical materialist lens and I suspect in doing so it will bolster my own understanding of theory).
I wouldn’t be surprised tbh. I don’t revere his economic analysis or anything. It’s just hard to find anyone at all working on economic planning theory.
The last video I saw was laughable - it was a junior doctor presentation on the recent strikes uploaded/promoted on his channel who accused the doctors of being reactionary because they supported trans rights (along with some other patsoc nonsense that service workers are not proletriat because of unproductive labour ie rehashing-baristas-aren’t-workers argument)