AHC: Capitalist planned economies, socialist market economies

As the title: Create a world where (almost) all capitalist countries are planned economies, while most socialist countries have a market economy.
 
maybe a bunch of nato bloc countries are on war footing because of a large scale invasion in asia, like another korean war? and the socialist countries are more along the lines of china or vietnam in otl.

or dirigism and state owned companies are more in vogue in this alternate timeline
 
The Soviet style societies manage preeminence and predominance, giving planned capitalism (wage labour, value-form self expansion in expanded reproduction; Marx 1867). Some capitals exist outside this (US and UK). But Soviet style capital possesses the greatest volume of value internationally.


Meanwhile the most developed socialist states suffer/enjoy Hungarian or Czechoslovak style social revolution that lead to the use of market signals between worker controlled cooperatives in the context of social needs fulfilment rather than value form price signals. As only rural guerilla movements of agricultural wage labourers are experiencing socialism otherwise, the largest volume of complex social exertion in socialist relations (socialism here being “lower” communism) exists in a context of market bid signals inter firm.

Improbable as the Soviet economies achieving predominance is, this gets you the result.
 
We have highly centrally planned economies in the capitalist west. Neoliberalism.

Interestingly, it's starting to show some of the same issues of stagnation as centrally planned state socialism did.
 
Fascism could be considered capitalist with planned economies, in Nazi Germany at least, the capitalists owned the means of production but they were ultimately subservient to the state. The People's Republic of China could be said to use a similar model.

As for socialist market economies, that's simple. Have a system in which all companies are coops, and engage in a wider free market economy. a.k.a. Anarcho-Syndicalism.
 
We have highly centrally planned economies in the capitalist west. Neoliberalism.

Interestingly, it's starting to show some of the same issues of stagnation as centrally planned state socialism did.

Neoliberalism is hardly a centerally planned economy. It's certainly the centeralization of RISK (which, while it's best this dosen't turn into a full flight political discussion, does create moral hazard and extends the life of parts of the economy that otherwise would have had to adapt or die) is hardly same as direction being sent down as to what bussiness must do.
 
Neoliberalism is hardly a centerally planned economy. It's certainly the centeralization of RISK (which, while it's best this dosen't turn into a full flight political discussion, does create moral hazard and extends the life of parts of the economy that otherwise would have had to adapt or die) is hardly same as direction being sent down as to what bussiness must do.

Neoliberalism can be substituted here for the Second five year plan and this post remains equally true. Much of this thread is probably going to be farcical projections on to the actual structure of plan behaviour, finance capital behaviour and firm behaviour in the Soviet Union.
 
Neoliberalism is hardly a centerally planned economy. It's certainly the centeralization of RISK (which, while it's best this dosen't turn into a full flight political discussion, does create moral hazard and extends the life of parts of the economy that otherwise would have had to adapt or die) is hardly same as direction being sent down as to what bussiness must do.
I'm going by actual results here, not intent.
 

xsampa

Banned
Fascism could be considered capitalist with planned economies, in Nazi Germany at least, the capitalists owned the means of production but they were ultimately subservient to the state. The People's Republic of China could be said to use a similar model.

As for socialist market economies, that's simple. Have a system in which all companies are coops, and engage in a wider free market economy. a.k.a. Anarcho-Syndicalism.
So a Fascist vs. Syndicalist cold war?
 
I'm going by actual results here, not intent.

I'm not quite sure that judging a structural term based on results is fair. One can get to a similar destination by multiple routes with those routes still being highly distinct.

Neoliberalism can be substituted here for the Second five year plan and this post remains equally true. Much of this thread is probably going to be farcical projections on to the actual structure of plan behaviour, finance capital behaviour and firm behaviour in the Soviet Union.

If that's the definition of "Planned Economy" we're going with, than I'd assert it's a matter of the Soviets not implimenting a command economy than Neoliberalism not being a market system.
 
than I'd assert it's a matter of the Soviets not implimenting a command economy

This is precisely the point. People have fantastic beliefs about the Soviet economy being one or directive leading to implementation. Plans existed. So did finance capital in the form of central banks. So did mostly clearing markets (outside of, for example, “tractor” production as pure state expense on tanks.).

While there is competition between value maximisation and volume maximisation in the Soviet economy, it needs to be placed in the circumstance where there is a massive purchaser of last resort with large effective demand: commodities still had to confront each other in a market. This held even if predictions of profitability had been made by the state and central banks based on expected growth; exactly like many other capitalist economies.

Even at the level of labour discipline the wage labour relationship and value maximisation held, most notably with the development of Stakhanov’s team labour motovation techniques with the foreman being paid surplus labour explicitly.
 
I'm not quite sure that judging a structural term based on results is fair. One can get to a similar destination by multiple routes with those routes still being highly distinct.



If that's the definition of "Planned Economy" we're going with, than I'd assert it's a matter of the Soviets not implimenting a command economy than Neoliberalism not being a market system.
I said centrally planned, I didn't say "state involvement"/STATE planning.

Wall street is (so far) working better than Gosplan did in the USSR but what'll happen when pension issues bite? Of course ATLs can alter this -- imagine the issues I'm wondering about happening post-*2008 in say an atl where Clinton and gingrich avoid lewinsky and private social security, ending "big retirement".
 

longsword14

Banned
Just prevent anti-Trust and you end up with an economy that is capitalist in name, but actually divided among several tycoons with very little market interference and a lot of planning.
Even without antitrust laws firms have not been able to dominate the entire market for extended periods of time. Even if your scenario actually came to pass, it would still not be a planned economy.
 
Well done, this is what the Chinese Communist Parties market reformers in the 80's actually believed was dialectally inevitable.
 
Top