The next essay is going to establish this; my general idea is to adapt the federal model to central planning. The state and local planning authorities would send resource/manpower estimates as well as their resource/manpower needs to the federal authorities, the authorities would draw up a broad national plan based on these input/output requirements, and state/local authorities would work to meet the plan according to their own means of organization. That's the general concept, but I'm going to elaborate more next month, because there are political realities to address as well (capital controls and financial nationalization being just two of them, in addition to the question of how to centralize planning when different firms perform different functions and have different supply models).
I want to adapt central planning to the federal governance model because using the structures which already exist is better than trying to refit America to resemble the Soviet Union, or trying to come up with an entirely new set of institutions alien to the American experience. Also, the fact that there is some friction between the states and the federal governments has proven that federalism is generative and dynamic even if it is currently stalling due to polarization. That means the risk of polarization and fragmentation will not be eliminated in the future, but that's also intentional. The next stage of central planning is more of a transition step towards communism as "End of History" (or, if that's too final for you as it is for me, "history mastered,"). The transition from economies structured around exchange-value to those oriented around use-value is likely to take centuries, so I wouldn't want to force it through here and now, I would want to create conditions which enable the trajectory towards that transformation.
“core dialectical tension within China: The state does not prioritize the needs of its internal population of laborers.”
One could think that since this keeps happening perhaps it’s inevitable when the state contacts labor, one could also observe that Communism replacing Capital made Communists the new Capital.
Re: communism becoming the new capital: Yes, this is a common theme in Trotskyism, where they accuse the USSR and China of developing "state capitalism" rather than market capitalism. There is some truth to the claim; neither China nor the USSR were able to abolish commodity production and still direct/ed production towards accumulating profit at the state level even though individual enterprises may have been unprofitable. Their contention is that this is not really socialism since profit isn't necessarily directed to labor as the fruit of labor, but toward the state for its own development projects. I think this is what is occurring but I don't like to use the term "state capitalism" because though useful, it isn't well-defined. Monopoly capital is better defined, and I think is in general a better term for how that system functions, and why it is still somewhat similar to our own system, rather than pitting "state capitalism" against "market capitalism" when they bear structural similarities.
What is the necessity at any college faculty in the USA?? And most media rooms.
We could also observe that bounded Liberty provides its own order- the order of being a stakeholder, a participant, a vested share and interest in the order- in systems throughout history from the Athenians, Arab tribesman to the Americans; and indeed even the Chinese and other Communist MILITARIES in wartime.
Oh yes quite democratic in this vital area allowing no pretense and one imperative there was free debate.
The necessity of the college faculty in the USA today is a combination of technical/research expertise in STEM, which I think you would agree is necessary, and propaganda distribution through the humanities (I am a defender of the humanities as a necessary part of collegiate education but today it is severely degraded in quality). There are also financial reasons colleges are so heavily supported (keeps debt burdens high), but the bloat isn't so much in faculty as much as it is in administration, amenities, and student services.
I agree, bounded liberty is its own order, absolutely. It's not strictly an either/or. Getting granular with it, bounded liberty though still curtails some freedoms in exchange for the order needed to allow for freedom in other areas. The Communist states practiced something similar, but the freedoms they curtailed were things we would more readily consider freedoms that should be allowable.
Absolutely, free debate is fundamental. Contradictions arise in any ordered society and they must be confronted directly before they threaten destruction. This is impossible when debate is silenced to maintain a fragile sense of order. At the same time, in certain circumstances, it will be curtailed to prevent debate from derailing a new political project from imposing order.
Lol footnote 3; 🤣
Look dig into working in and solving one of these sectors and then perhaps allow theory to be influenced by reality.
But at least you’re consistent; it must be central planning.
Very well how does one resolve the real contradiction of America being a Federation?
The next essay is going to establish this; my general idea is to adapt the federal model to central planning. The state and local planning authorities would send resource/manpower estimates as well as their resource/manpower needs to the federal authorities, the authorities would draw up a broad national plan based on these input/output requirements, and state/local authorities would work to meet the plan according to their own means of organization. That's the general concept, but I'm going to elaborate more next month, because there are political realities to address as well (capital controls and financial nationalization being just two of them, in addition to the question of how to centralize planning when different firms perform different functions and have different supply models).
I want to adapt central planning to the federal governance model because using the structures which already exist is better than trying to refit America to resemble the Soviet Union, or trying to come up with an entirely new set of institutions alien to the American experience. Also, the fact that there is some friction between the states and the federal governments has proven that federalism is generative and dynamic even if it is currently stalling due to polarization. That means the risk of polarization and fragmentation will not be eliminated in the future, but that's also intentional. The next stage of central planning is more of a transition step towards communism as "End of History" (or, if that's too final for you as it is for me, "history mastered,"). The transition from economies structured around exchange-value to those oriented around use-value is likely to take centuries, so I wouldn't want to force it through here and now, I would want to create conditions which enable the trajectory towards that transformation.
“core dialectical tension within China: The state does not prioritize the needs of its internal population of laborers.”
One could think that since this keeps happening perhaps it’s inevitable when the state contacts labor, one could also observe that Communism replacing Capital made Communists the new Capital.
Animal Farm certainly taught this as allegory.
Re: communism becoming the new capital: Yes, this is a common theme in Trotskyism, where they accuse the USSR and China of developing "state capitalism" rather than market capitalism. There is some truth to the claim; neither China nor the USSR were able to abolish commodity production and still direct/ed production towards accumulating profit at the state level even though individual enterprises may have been unprofitable. Their contention is that this is not really socialism since profit isn't necessarily directed to labor as the fruit of labor, but toward the state for its own development projects. I think this is what is occurring but I don't like to use the term "state capitalism" because though useful, it isn't well-defined. Monopoly capital is better defined, and I think is in general a better term for how that system functions, and why it is still somewhat similar to our own system, rather than pitting "state capitalism" against "market capitalism" when they bear structural similarities.
“Thus, order championed liberty by necessity.”
What is the necessity at any college faculty in the USA?? And most media rooms.
We could also observe that bounded Liberty provides its own order- the order of being a stakeholder, a participant, a vested share and interest in the order- in systems throughout history from the Athenians, Arab tribesman to the Americans; and indeed even the Chinese and other Communist MILITARIES in wartime.
Oh yes quite democratic in this vital area allowing no pretense and one imperative there was free debate.
The necessity of the college faculty in the USA today is a combination of technical/research expertise in STEM, which I think you would agree is necessary, and propaganda distribution through the humanities (I am a defender of the humanities as a necessary part of collegiate education but today it is severely degraded in quality). There are also financial reasons colleges are so heavily supported (keeps debt burdens high), but the bloat isn't so much in faculty as much as it is in administration, amenities, and student services.
I agree, bounded liberty is its own order, absolutely. It's not strictly an either/or. Getting granular with it, bounded liberty though still curtails some freedoms in exchange for the order needed to allow for freedom in other areas. The Communist states practiced something similar, but the freedoms they curtailed were things we would more readily consider freedoms that should be allowable.
Absolutely, free debate is fundamental. Contradictions arise in any ordered society and they must be confronted directly before they threaten destruction. This is impossible when debate is silenced to maintain a fragile sense of order. At the same time, in certain circumstances, it will be curtailed to prevent debate from derailing a new political project from imposing order.