|
|
|
|
|
|
by lucian1900
1808 days ago
|
|
|
Before the revolution, landlords in agricultural areas were already selling food to the industrial cities, with prices subject to market forces. After the revolution, the state planned this trade and set fixed prices for food so industrial workers could afford it. Since these prices were lower than what the landlords wanted to extract, they destroyed food rather than sell it to the state. “Fraud, famine and fascism” by Tottle has many quotes from primary sources, here’s a few http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/node77.html Planning hasn’t been entirely centralised in any socialist country. There is naturally a lot of back and forth when determining what an area needs and what it can produce. A lot of planning is also delegated locally for matters that don’t affect other areas. Ultimately planning is the essential part, while some amount of centralisation is useful for optimisation to avoid merely local optimums. |
|
|
So the problem stemmed from central planning? Sounds like a good example for my point.
> ...some amount of centralisation is useful for optimisation...
See, my point is that this is not the case, and beyond that, that planning cannot accomplish more optimal distribution of resources that markets, and I'm using analogous network topology to demonstrate how this can be proven to be true.