I once went to yet another climate protest with a sign declaring my support for 'fully planned queer solarpunk communism' - but I got puzzled looks and quest...
I can’t tell if you’re joking, but I’m going to assume you aren’t. It seems to me that a planned economy inherently requires a degree of centralization, at least cooperative agreements, between producers. My question is how “Fully Planned Queer Solarpunk Communism” can be fully planned and decentralized.
A minor degree of centralization, coop agreements, etc. Decentralization and no centralization are two different things. We are after all on a decentralized, federated social media network.
I guess I’m hung up on the “Fully” part of “Fully Planned”. I am aware that cooperation and coordination can happen among communities that don’t have central authorities, but to my mind that decentralization of authority has to imply that each group comes up with its own plan for what to do with its own resources at least somewhat independently. In my mind, “fully planned” means that production planning is fully centralized, or at least there is a central mechanism by which all parties must get their part of the plan approved by the whole collective before it becomes part of the plan.
If an individual member has the freedom to alter the plan, is it fully planned? And if it’s fully planned, does that mean that every member is completely constrained by the plan, and therefore has no independent authority? That’s what I’m struggling with, they seem like contradicting ideas.
What do you think makes it hard to combine planning, decentralization and democracy?
I can’t tell if you’re joking, but I’m going to assume you aren’t. It seems to me that a planned economy inherently requires a degree of centralization, at least cooperative agreements, between producers. My question is how “Fully Planned Queer Solarpunk Communism” can be fully planned and decentralized.
It sounds like you’ve answered your own question.
A minor degree of centralization, coop agreements, etc. Decentralization and no centralization are two different things. We are after all on a decentralized, federated social media network.
You’ve already gotten good answers so I just wanted to reply that I indeed wasn’t joking.
You can have decentralized planning. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
Decentralization doesn’t mean you can’t have organization, communication or coordination.
I guess I’m hung up on the “Fully” part of “Fully Planned”. I am aware that cooperation and coordination can happen among communities that don’t have central authorities, but to my mind that decentralization of authority has to imply that each group comes up with its own plan for what to do with its own resources at least somewhat independently. In my mind, “fully planned” means that production planning is fully centralized, or at least there is a central mechanism by which all parties must get their part of the plan approved by the whole collective before it becomes part of the plan.
If an individual member has the freedom to alter the plan, is it fully planned? And if it’s fully planned, does that mean that every member is completely constrained by the plan, and therefore has no independent authority? That’s what I’m struggling with, they seem like contradicting ideas.