[This piece was composed with significant research from xAI's Grok; it summarizes the years of posts under what I characterize as Rebane Doctrine.]
George Rebane
Why do collectivist governments with central planning and control not work?
Collective governments with central control—typically referring to systems like command or centrally planned economies where the state directs resource allocation, production, and distribution—have been critiqued extensively for their inefficiencies and historical shortcomings. While proponents argue they can promote equity and rapid industrialization (as seen in the early Soviet Union), they often struggle due to fundamental structural issues. Below, I'll outline the main reasons they tend not to work effectively, drawing from economic theory, historical examples, and analyses. These are not absolute failures in every case, but common patterns observed in implementations like the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea.
- Lack of Price Signals and Economic Calculation Problems
Central planners cannot efficiently allocate resources without market-driven prices, which naturally reflect supply, demand, and consumer preferences. Without these signals, it's impossible to accurately forecast needs, leading to shortages, surpluses, and misallocation. For instance, planners might overproduce unwanted goods while underproducing essentials. This issue, known as the "economic calculation problem," was famously articulated by economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who argued that no central authority can process the vast, dispersed knowledge held by individuals in a society.
- Overwhelming Complexity and Data Challenges
Economies are too complex for central authorities to manage effectively, involving billions of data points on production, consumption, and preferences. Planners often deal with incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated information, making informed decisions impossible. In the Soviet Union, for example, delays in processing data led to persistent inefficiencies.
- Perverse Incentives and Malicious Compliance
Without personal profit motives or competition, workers and managers prioritize meeting quotas over quality or efficiency, often leading to absurd outcomes. A classic Soviet anecdote illustrates this: when nail production was measured by quantity, factories made millions of tiny, useless nails; when switched to weight, they produced massive spikes instead. This "malicious compliance" also appeared in over-whaling or running empty trains to hit targets, resulting in waste and environmental harm.
- Absence of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Central control stifles creativity by eliminating entrepreneurs who could identify and solve problems quickly. With no private initiative or risk-reward system, innovations lag—Soviet products like cars remained stagnant for decades compared to Western competitors. Issues like chronic shortages (e.g., toilet paper in the USSR) persisted because only state entities could act, delaying solutions.
- Lack of Competition and Monopolies
State monopolies lead to poor quality and inefficiency, as there's no pressure to improve or cut costs. Unlike market economies where failing firms go bankrupt, state enterprises survive regardless of performance, draining resources. This contributed to the Soviet Union's technological backwardness and consumer dissatisfaction.
- Concentration of Power and Corruption Risks
Central planning requires a large bureaucracy, which can become a de facto ruling class prone to corruption, self-interest, and poor decisions by non-experts. Power struggles (e.g., under Stalin) led to arbitrary allocations, like sending inappropriate equipment abroad. Historically, this has suppressed individual freedoms and led to authoritarianism.
- Inflexibility and Inability to Adapt
Fixed prices and rigid plans prevent quick responses to changes, causing ongoing shortages or surpluses. Equity goals often fail too, with poor-quality goods and inefficiencies harming overall welfare. Many centrally planned systems, like those in Eastern Europe post-WWII, collapsed or transitioned to market models in the 1980s and 1990s due to these issues.
In summary, while central control can achieve short-term goals like mobilization during crises, it generally falters under the weight of human knowledge limits, incentive misalignments, and complexity. Most modern economies succeed as mixed systems, blending planning with market mechanisms for better outcomes.
Which political party promotes centralized control and planning?
The Democratic Party in the United States is often associated with promoting centralized control and planning, particularly through policies that emphasize government intervention in the economy, social programs, and regulatory frameworks. Democrats typically advocate for federal initiatives like universal healthcare, environmental regulations, and wealth redistribution, which involve centralized decision-making to achieve broader societal goals. For example, policies like the Affordable Care Act or proposals for a Green New Deal reflect a preference for coordinated, government-led planning.
In contrast, the Republican Party generally leans toward decentralized approaches, favoring free-market principles, limited government, and individual state autonomy, though there are exceptions depending on specific issues or leadership. Both parties can support centralized measures in certain contexts, but Democrats are more consistently aligned with centralized planning as a core ideological stance.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment