4 ms·

So who is going to write the 5-year plans, who gets to set the goals, who will decide what gets produced where? GOSPlan [1] never managed to get this right, why

So who is going to write the 5-year plans, who gets to set the goals, who will decide what gets produced where? GOSPlan [1] never managed to get this right, why do you think it would work this time? History is there to be learned from. Planned economies do not work, they are inefficient and a breeding ground for corruption. Also, rest assured that there will be no wind turbines or solar farms around the dacha's of the party elite. Read The GULAG Archipelago or The First Circle for some more insight in the dark side of your proposed "solution" and realise this has been tried - and failed, miserably and horribly - many times over. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-planning/Economic-planning-in-communist-countries https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-planning/Economic-...

cassepipe 4y ago
I think your comment is way over the top. Yes, planned economies are a failure but wartime economies were absolutely not compared to their goal : waging a war. OP said that deciding as a society (whatever that means) that this is the new direction and all efforts are now going into that direction would be a solution, and that it has an historical precedent : wartime economies.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  We are not at war so we should not have a wartime economy. Notice by the way that this was the same excuse used in the Soviet Union to keep up the level of oppression since 'enemies from all around were just waiting to attack the workers and peasants socialist revolution - we are at war with the capitalists'. He who does not learn from history is bound to repeat its mistakes. We are not at war. Let's hope it stays this way, don't clamour for war, stop calling for 'wartime measures'.
  - cassepipe 4y ago
    Fine you win the philosophical/rhetorical whatever point but the point of calling a war on climate change is just a way to signal to society that it is a matter of life and death. Sometimes people need symbolic stuff to actually care. The thing is the lives on the billion human beings on this planet relies on technical systems that are heavily dependent on oil (and its carbon rich friends, coal, gas etc.). Look around, everything in your daily lives from what you wear, to where you live, to what you eat relies on oil and friends energy inputs. Anybody who does not support massive collective efforts that entails renouncing at least the most energy intensive forms of modern comfort implicitly supports the violent authoritarian society that will inevitably on a planet where not all can be fed and not all can live on.
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      That call for collectivism has the nasty tendency to end up resembling that violent authoritarian society you assume will arise on 'a planet where not all can be fed and not all can live on' without there actually being a real food/energy/living space shortage. Read some real history for numerous examples of such. If you want to change the world begin with yourself and others may follow. Climbing atop a crate and calling for revolution hardly ever works, if you're lucky the people will ignore you but if they join in the revolutionary leaders nearly always end up like a caricature of whatever their revolution was supposed to bring: - the French revolution was supposed to give liberty, equality and fraternity but ended up dealing out terror and death - the Russian revolution was supposed to free the workers and peasants from the yoke of the Czars but ended up putting them under the far heavier yoke of the Party - the Chinese revolution followed the Russian one and succeeded in killing even more people during 'the Great Leap Forward' (30 to 50 million deaths) and 'the Cultural Revolution' (3 to 5 million deaths) - the North-Korean revolution was not a revolution but an example of a puppet regime installed by the Soviet Union which ended up outliving its master while outdoing it in destruction and misery - the Cambodian revolution followed the Chinese one and - on a percentage scale - outdid even Mao in killing the population - the Cuban revolution was supposed to free the population from its puppet regime but ended up installing a worse and far longer-lasting one - the Venezuelan revolution was supposed to share the massive gains of the country's oil resources more fairly over the population but succeeded in installing yet another personality cult leader who wrecked (an official term, 'wreckers' were supposed to be anti-revolutionary activists intent on destroying the Soviet economy) the country's economy and infrastructure and main source of income - those same oil resources This list can be extended ad nauseam since history is littered with failed attempts at collectivisation. Some of those attempts were abandoned when it became clear that the solution was worse than the problems it was supposed to cure, e.g. in Israel, India and the (to a lesser extent) post-WWII United Kingdom and post-Mao China (for now). Instead of preaching collectivism may I suggest adopting some measures to curb your own energy dependence and sharing this with the world? You will not be able to coax the 'elite' out of their private jets not matter whether they're the 'elite' of a market economy calling for 'green' policies after taking those private jets to Davos or the leaders of a collectivist society (see the above list for some examples) who'll just send the Cheka/NKVD/VoPo to whip you away on some drummed-up charge. In short, if you want change, change yourself. Stop buying 'stuff', find something else to satisfy those craves which does not depend on those things you think are set to ruin the future. Stop flying, ditch your car, whatever it takes. This will necessitate radical changes in your life style but since (to use your own words) we're at war that should not be a problem. Share your successes with the world, change it from the bottom up. Starting with the people around you convince them of the necessity of this change. They won't like what you have to say but if you manage to convince them you'll have created more change agents who do not need a repressive state to force them to change their ways.

cassepipe 4y ago

I think your comment is way over the top. Yes, planned economies are a failure but wartime economies were absolutely not compared to their goal : waging a war. OP said that deciding as a society (whatever that means) that this is the new direction and all efforts are now going into that direction would be a solution, and that it has an historical precedent : wartime economies.

the_third_wave 4y ago
We are not at war so we should not have a wartime economy. Notice by the way that this was the same excuse used in the Soviet Union to keep up the level of oppression since 'enemies from all around were just waiting to attack the workers and peasants socialist revolution - we are at war with the capitalists'. He who does not learn from history is bound to repeat its mistakes. We are not at war. Let's hope it stays this way, don't clamour for war, stop calling for 'wartime measures'.
- cassepipe 4y ago
  Fine you win the philosophical/rhetorical whatever point but the point of calling a war on climate change is just a way to signal to society that it is a matter of life and death. Sometimes people need symbolic stuff to actually care. The thing is the lives on the billion human beings on this planet relies on technical systems that are heavily dependent on oil (and its carbon rich friends, coal, gas etc.). Look around, everything in your daily lives from what you wear, to where you live, to what you eat relies on oil and friends energy inputs. Anybody who does not support massive collective efforts that entails renouncing at least the most energy intensive forms of modern comfort implicitly supports the violent authoritarian society that will inevitably on a planet where not all can be fed and not all can live on.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    That call for collectivism has the nasty tendency to end up resembling that violent authoritarian society you assume will arise on 'a planet where not all can be fed and not all can live on' without there actually being a real food/energy/living space shortage. Read some real history for numerous examples of such. If you want to change the world begin with yourself and others may follow. Climbing atop a crate and calling for revolution hardly ever works, if you're lucky the people will ignore you but if they join in the revolutionary leaders nearly always end up like a caricature of whatever their revolution was supposed to bring: - the French revolution was supposed to give liberty, equality and fraternity but ended up dealing out terror and death - the Russian revolution was supposed to free the workers and peasants from the yoke of the Czars but ended up putting them under the far heavier yoke of the Party - the Chinese revolution followed the Russian one and succeeded in killing even more people during 'the Great Leap Forward' (30 to 50 million deaths) and 'the Cultural Revolution' (3 to 5 million deaths) - the North-Korean revolution was not a revolution but an example of a puppet regime installed by the Soviet Union which ended up outliving its master while outdoing it in destruction and misery - the Cambodian revolution followed the Chinese one and - on a percentage scale - outdid even Mao in killing the population - the Cuban revolution was supposed to free the population from its puppet regime but ended up installing a worse and far longer-lasting one - the Venezuelan revolution was supposed to share the massive gains of the country's oil resources more fairly over the population but succeeded in installing yet another personality cult leader who wrecked (an official term, 'wreckers' were supposed to be anti-revolutionary activists intent on destroying the Soviet economy) the country's economy and infrastructure and main source of income - those same oil resources This list can be extended ad nauseam since history is littered with failed attempts at collectivisation. Some of those attempts were abandoned when it became clear that the solution was worse than the problems it was supposed to cure, e.g. in Israel, India and the (to a lesser extent) post-WWII United Kingdom and post-Mao China (for now). Instead of preaching collectivism may I suggest adopting some measures to curb your own energy dependence and sharing this with the world? You will not be able to coax the 'elite' out of their private jets not matter whether they're the 'elite' of a market economy calling for 'green' policies after taking those private jets to Davos or the leaders of a collectivist society (see the above list for some examples) who'll just send the Cheka/NKVD/VoPo to whip you away on some drummed-up charge. In short, if you want change, change yourself. Stop buying 'stuff', find something else to satisfy those craves which does not depend on those things you think are set to ruin the future. Stop flying, ditch your car, whatever it takes. This will necessitate radical changes in your life style but since (to use your own words) we're at war that should not be a problem. Share your successes with the world, change it from the bottom up. Starting with the people around you convince them of the necessity of this change. They won't like what you have to say but if you manage to convince them you'll have created more change agents who do not need a repressive state to force them to change their ways.