Welcome to Gaia! ::

Until now it has been impractical to have a fully centralised planned economy, however now, with decent computing and communications we can achieve that. Will we do so? What is the need? That's what everything comes down to. We will do what is best or most satisfactory in the circumstances and right now we don't know those circumstances. The only realistic answer is a very vague 'mixed': We don't know which will dominate, nor how, nor why. We can only say that there is likely to be significant centralisation, as well as local input and modification of the central plan. If asked for more detail, all we can do is shrug and say 'we will see'.

"Charisma"?

"Is centralisation really the answer though?"
Well, lets say we have the entire world without the capitalists. We've killed them all, or sent them to Mars, or put them on some idylic Pacific Islands that have no people and that nobody cares about. OK, so whatever we have done, we need to reorganise the global economy.

Without any centralisation (or rather, with localised centralisation), each local area is on its own. It has whatever manpower and resources are within its area, or what it can trade for. There is nothing stopping that trade from being exploitative. Some oil rich area, for example, will be able, if it wants, to extort huge food supplies from areas with few resources, but good soil. So what we would have is, if not strictly capitalism, and extremely unbalanced and exploitative set of communal societies.

On the other hand, with centralisation we will be able to organise production for the whole world. OK, so some regions are very developed and have resources, and don't need much reconstruction, well we can set people in those areas to work producing things needed in the less developed, more resource poor areas. We would not have trade, but allocation of resources.

The exact amount of centralisation, however, will depend on the situation we find ourselves in.

You seem to be trying to 'catch' me saying something contradictory, or trying to force me to admit something that I have argued against. That's not bad as a discussion tool, to try to get people to recognise the limitations in their own views, but it doesn't fit here because what you are trying to force me to admit is something I have already said, in both of my posts here:




In both cases I said that whatever exists will likely be 'mixed', in both cases I said that we don't know exactly how that mix will be composed. And in the first one I said that if asked for more detail we can't give a real answer beyond a shrug.

Edit: About incentive to work, we won't need much incentive to work. We will be abolishing a huge amount of workplaces to start with, so that will free up significant labour, and since we won't be producing for profit, but for need, then we have no incentive to reduce labour costs and will be able to put the unemployed to work. Finally, with increasing mechanisation we will be able to let people work less and less on strictly 'productive' tasks, and work on 'blue sky' scientific research, cultural pursuits, and education. When the workweek is reduced to three 6 hour workdays a week, people have less incentive to not work, plus we will aim to make the work environment as free and comfortable as possible, so people don't feel like they are forced into drudgery.

How local organisation helps in this, is something I've not looked at, and as I pointed out above, something we can't predict anyway because we don't know just how much local control there will be.