Stages of Economic Planning

For me, it is meaningless to speak of a "five-year plan" as in most socialist states with a nationalized series of production. It is simple as to why this is the case; the management of an economy goes on every single day, and to set production targets over a period is both unrealistic and also anti-materialist.

When I speak of economic planning, I do mean it in the literal sense of the word, but also, with the advances in computation, we can plan in a day what it took the Soviets or any other planned economy years to do.

Rather, I think we should have some sort of series of directives. These are more vague than the five year plans with quotas for targeted percentage growth, and so are perhaps less satisfying, but I think the directive of a planned economy should just be that; a directive. It is on the head of a firm or firms -- in this case the head of state or government apparatus -- to understand when one part of a certain stage blends into another. You cannot make water into air, except by heat and time. Our heat and time is through careful, patient planning and the knowledge that although our quotas and goals will not be as shocking or as propagandized, we will ultimately emerge with a strong economy that is in the hands of the workers and provides for every person in the nation.

As for those stages, I propose a multi-stage process that might look slightly different than the traditional industrialization process. Still, through study of how contemporary states/nations grew quickly, it is possible to discern these steps. In the last stages, I go further, as nobody has ever really developed a good "what to do" theory of post-industrial development.

• The initial stage must consist of export-oriented goods. Manufacturing is preferable to service jobs for a few reasons, with one of those being that jobs of building a certain thing is more pleasurable, more tactile than simply getting someone something that already exists. In the case of the Asian Tigers, their development from the 1960s to the 1997 financial crisis was due in parts to their export-oriented patterns of development. Thus, the state should set up these manufactories in each place that is most advantageous to it, train thousands of workers for it, and then execute on the plan. From the domestic perspective, some of these export goods are also good for domestic usage, and the wages provided from overseas (there must be advantageous but ultimately fair terms for the nation) builds up a large standard in living increase for an enormous number of people. A key factor here is understanding where the global market is going, with the obvious caveat that anything which raises a moral quandary for the state is not really allowable. While it would mean that state services would be lean at the start, it does also mean they could come online fairly quickly.
• After the initial stage, there comes a transitory period of manufacturing where some parts are domestic and some parts are for export. This is the general outline of a state which has already increased its standard quickly, and thus the society starts to acquire tastes. In this stage, the state services should be set up and well-appointed by now. Excess in the sphere of manpower should be fully utilized here; if a person wants to be a doctor? Let them. If a person wants to be anything? Let them. To get to this stage is to get to the big core of dynamism in a nation's spirit. Without that, the legitimacy of the government structure rests on a bed of sand. This transitory period can last for decades.
• When an economy can be considered mostly or fully industrialized, it generally tends to service jobs more, as goods can be cheaply imported. However, in our system, the divergence starts; we are still going to keep most of the factories online. But, now that our productive capacities are full, we will still keep the basics of food, machine, and technic production online. The economist hears this and cries about economic efficiency and how a market would better allocate those resources. To that I say: bullshit! You cannot have people work in food service all their lives (unless they want to do that) and not have any other option for any other kind of work. In theory, the neoliberal economists argue that it's not how it's supposed to work, and that there is training that needs to be done with unemployed people. Again, bullshit; this rarely happens because at this point, a political problem emerges in that people tend towards nativism, understanding very clearly that their gains are usually gotten from some poor bastard in another far off place. At this point, our people start experience a far increased social dividend (which we started at the beginning in a kind of people's bank account), with more services being online. Food would be subsidized and possibly the production of food itself could be mostly automated; same with cars and same with consumer electronics. Specialists would still need to exist, as would public service jobs. However, the difference between us and a capitalist nation is that the social dividend means the increasing automation and production can be and will be returned to all, rather than a leeching capitalist class. This stage may last 100 to 1,000 years, possibly longer depending on technological advance and global warming's effects on productive development, and humanity is very very early on in this stage of development.
• Finally, in a totally "post-industrial" state, the entirety of all jobs that are manufactory are automated completely. Resource extraction is automatic (including, with specific exceptions, food gathering from farms), manufactories are automated, farming itself is automated. This is far off into the future, and perhaps cannot exist, but I would say it can and will at some point. At this point, the concept of a "job" would become alien except for repairing of the robots (itself possibly able to be automated should a civilization come up with Von Neumann probes). Doctors would still exist, as would the need to take care of fires and probably other highly specialized jobs. This is an Elysium for everyone, and at this point, we can say that full communism has been achieved, and our task itself as a government is perhaps complete, though always there should be at least a few people to keep track of a system or of the system. While this might seem fantastical and "utopian", it is possible if we can plan on a long enough time scale. The social dividend is merely the care for everyone; it long ceases to be an actual, physical entity.

The last point might seem almost unreal. Indeed, it probably would be. As I heard someone say a while back; if you showed a person from the 9th century AD a smartphone today, it would not register as technology, but rather as magic. Another joke is that if Marx was around today, he would not concern himself so much with the internecine politics of the 21st century left, but would instead be in disbelief that only 80 or 90 some years after his death, people went to the Moon.

But, this is the future we must imagine. If we don't, then the future is far bleaker and far less enjoyable than our imagining. Thus, we owe it to our grandchildren and their grandchildren to imagine a better world.

For a more practical perspective, it would benefit someone to notice that we did not close down our factories because of momentary (in this case meaning on the scale of a few years) economic pressures. This is the benefit of state planning; intentional "inefficiencies" that turn out to be born of foresight rather than nostalgia or impulse. We know that our factories can be used for other purposes, and our training is not one of a labor aristocracy, but rather for, by, and from the workers themselves. This is not a guild; people can go from one career to the next, and anyone can with the proper training.

We think beyond the next quarter because we can, and it is useful to do so. To think years into the future is considered a sign of genius when the capitalist does it, but strange and ineffective when a socialist does it. But, who cares about those people?

Before, I laid out the idea that some services can take precedence over others in the various stages of a communist state. I will class these in broad terms, but any good revolutionary with their boots on the ground can modify the situation.

Keep in mind, all of these would still be owned by the state. This list though, is more about what is and isn't something that should be charged for. As well, the goal is not to make a profit, but simply to help the state out.

• Non-negotiable: Basic food rations, shelter, utilities, medical care, local forms of transportation, job training.
• Possible at next stage: All food, internet service, intercity transit services (train and bus), two/four year college/university degrees in useful fields (including nursing programs and MD graduate programs), phones (including basic plans), and limited consumer electronics.
• Fully/post-industrial transition: All consumer electronics including unlimited mobile service plans, all transit services (air travel, both national and international), all university degrees in all programs.
• Full post-industrial: Everything.