Command economy

{{economics}}
{{cquote|You can force poor beggars in factories to produce more products, but a farmer can't force the land to produce. He can't preach [[Karl Marx|Marx]] to the weather so that it rains at the right time. And in the whole of [[Soviet Union|Russia]] the sun has never been known for as much as one day to listen to the economics of the late [[Joseph Stalin]].|4=Leonard Wibberley, ''The Mouse that Roared''}}
A '''command economy''' (also known as a '''planned economy''') refers to an [[economic]] model in which a central authority dictates to farms, factories, schools and companies:
*''Which'' and ''how many'' goods, services and professionals to produce
*''Where'' to distribute these and ''who'' may partake
*''Deciding'' their set price and value semi-arbitrarily (e.g. 'by decree')

In order for these processes to even ''be doable'' on a national scale, far-reaching central control is needed — typically, featuring the total control of industry, education and labour, alongside invention of the internal machinations required to ''ensure'' top-down compliance from every individual person in the system.

This, in stark contrast to the spectrum of demand economies (also known as "[[free market|market]]" economies), in which each individual is theoretically<ref group=note>Noting that the "free market", [[Austrian_school| faithfully thrust upon the real world]], tends to only produce greater freedom of economic action for the rich, powerful, and politically connected — and woe to those who'd form [[labor union]]s then!</ref> — free to name their own terms when it comes to production and trade.

==Midas or madness?==
{{cquote|Planning is not equivalent to 'perfect' allocation of resources, nor 'scientific' allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.|||Ernest Mandel, ''In Defence of Socialist Planning''<ref>http://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/pdf/Mandel%20socialist%20planning.pdf</ref>}}
The command economy model is best known for two things:
#Being attempted by a number of [[Communist]] regimes during the 20th century
#Eventually stagnating their economies and hindering their countries' development

In this capacity, the command model has repeatedly been the subject of heavy criticism from all sides of the political spectrum (with the exception of [[Tankie|enthusiastic authoritarians]], on both sides of the [[Horseshoe_theory|horseshoe]]). [[Wingnut]]s criticize it mainly for gutting [[Capitalism|free enterprise]] and [[traditional values]], while [[moonbat]]s typically protest that the centralized hierarchy inherent to command economies not only goes against [[Karl Marx]]'s original vision of '{{wpl | stateless communism}}', but also clashes powerfully with a range of cherished socialist ideals.{{efn |
Noteworthy socialist ideals made null and void in command economies include: the right not to be [[Alienation|reduced to a 'cog in the machine']]; practically ''every'' socialist conception of localized 'bottom-up' self-organization; many [[communalist]] principles (e.g. democratic rotation of communal offices); the 'withering away of the state';<ref>{{wpa | Withering away of the state}}</ref> internationalist and pacifist sentiment (e.g. the right to not participate in arms manufacture)<; ''et cetera'', ''et cetera''...
}}
People and institutions ranging across the political spectrum have expressed vehement skepticism towards the [[Stalinism|Stalinist]]-reeking concept of overtly signing away ''all'' functions of economic self-determination to [[Dunning_Kruger|a distant clique of politically untouchable 'experts']].

Outside the context of initial industrial development and acute periods of war, the command-economy model has never been promoted by mainstream economists outside of totalitarian dictatorships, it having achieved a certain 'general recognition' for being woefully inefficient — to the point of being counterproductive — in the management of any peacetime economy. Rather, current disputes in [[macroeconomics]], broadly speaking, pit [[Chicago school|doctrinaire]] [[Austrian school|free-marketeers]] against [[Keynesianism|promoters of government intervention]] (i.e., of a "mixed economy") — discussions ''far'' removed from the fantastical realm of 'great leaps' and 'five-year plans'.

Historically, two major countries to feature command economies were [[China]] and the [[Soviet Union]]. While demonstrably capable of garnering results ''in the short term''{{efn|
Just as undertaking a stickup robbery<ref>{{wpl | 1907 Tiflis bank robbery | An early Stalin accomplishment}}.</ref> 'actually works' in terms of certainly ''being able'' to produce short-term results — though, just ''at the expense of'' the long-term.}} — a feature held ''in common'' with a number of non-command economies — both experiments ultimately wrought the loss of social mobility, wild fluctuations in the availability of goods and services, the formation of black markets ''utterly dwarfing'' their western 'Prohibition era' counterparts, state-sponsored pseudoscience, famines (both [[Holodomor|intentional]] and otherwise), unprecedented environmental devastation, unchecked human error and general ideological insanity. By the late 1970's, sheer necessity increasingly drove both countries to overhaul their respective economies. While the former, China, is [[Triangulation|still ''nominally'' communist]], its economy has diverged dramatically from the introverted '[[Juche|self-reliance]]' implied by the old ideals (instead, [[Irony|expanding powerfully into global free-market trade]]). The latter, the Soviet Union, no longer exists — in part, as a result of its much more 'ideologically pure' command economy going completely haywire on them ''for that reason''. Exemplifying the [[sunk cost]] fallacy, ''more than a decade'' of continuous 'life support' proved inconsequential in compensating for the systemic flaws endemic to command economies.<ref name="Era">{{wpa|Era of Stagnation}}</ref>

==Examples==
===Historical examples of command economies===
*Chile under [[Salvador Allende]] at least tried to some extent with the {{wpl|Project Cybersyn}}
*The People's Republic of China, which had a planned economy until the late 1970s, when [[Mao Zedong]] died. Wasn't doing too hot, either.<ref>{{wpa|Great Leap Forward}}</ref> Since ''giving up'' its planned economy, however, China's economy has come close to double-digit economic growth rates, though still at the cost of terrible [[pollution]] and [[Sweatshop|appalling working conditions]] in its semi-privatized factories (not that working conditions were so much better ''before'' industrialization) due to the inability of the government to ''effectively'' [[Communism|legislate, enforce, and/or give a single fuck]] about the environment or working conditions.
*The Inca Empire: the Incan Economy was driven by the Mit'a system in which people were required to work for the Imperial Government for part of the year as taxation. This included working Government Farms, tending government llama herds or someone who was (for example) a skilled bronzesmith being required to make three maces every year. The products of these would go into government storehouses and would be used to feed and arm soldiers, feed workers working at Imperial enclaves known as tempu and road construction and maintenance crews, support a network of officials and be distributed to the populace at festivals.<ref>Terence N. D'Altroy The Modern Scholar: The Incas: Inside an American Empire (Recorded Books, 2004)</ref>
*[[India]] under the {{wpl|License Raj}} (1947-1990), while not as extreme as the USSR, had a mixed economy with central planning, extensive public ownership, regulation, red tape and trade barriers.<ref>{{wpa|Economic history of India}}</ref> Its low growth rate was often mockingly referred to as the {{wpl|Hindu rate of growth}}. Doing much better since the economic liberalization in 1991.<ref>{{wpa|Economy of India}}</ref>
*[[Iraq]], from the ascension of [[Saddam Hussein]] to his [[Iraq War|overthrow]] in 2003. [[Naomi Klein]] claimed in her book ''The Shock Doctrine'' that [[privatization]] of state-owned industries was done in an intentionally harsh manner, causing unrest when many of the newly unemployed men became militants.{{citation needed}} Doing way better since ceasing to be a command economy.<ref>{{wpa|Economic_reform_of_Iraq#Effects}}</ref>
*[[Libya]], while a {{wpl|Third International Theory}} command economy under the dictatorship of [[Gaddafi]], is no longer considered a command economy.<ref>{{wpa|Libya#Economy}}</ref> In 2013, the {{wpl|World Bank}} officially defined it as an "Upper Middle Income Economy".<ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20421402~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html#Upper_middle_income]</ref>
*[[Laos]] was at one point a command economy, though it underwent market reforms in the 80s (i.e. not exactly yesterday), and now receives loans from the IMF et. al., with commercial tourism racing to the front as the fastest-growing industry. The economy of Laos is no longer a command economy whatsoever, and has generally picked up enormously since dropping the command model.<ref>{{wpa|Laos#Economy}}</ref>
*[[Myanmar]] (Burma) — whose ruling general once made the currency divisible by nine because [[John_Hogue|he was told by his seer it was "lucky"]], causing chaos<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/0217/Business-in-Burma-Show-me-the-money-but-only-if-it-s-crisp Business in Burma: Show me the money, but only if it's crisp], ''Christian Science Monitor''</ref> — was a command economy up to 2011.<ref>{{wpa|Myanmar#Economic liberalisation.2C_post.E2.80.932011}}</ref> The so-called {{wpl|Burmese Way to Socialism}} was one of the worst fails in the history of command economies,<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/burma.uk</ref><ref>http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-04-voa10.cfm?CFID=117290760&CFTOKEN=64840153&jsessionid=6630167e8fd1b43b9eef18506362225e1f2d</ref> bankrupting the nation into one of the poorest and most squalid in the entire world.<ref>http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/list.htm</ref> While Myanmar's economy was ''tied with North Korea's'' (!) in terms of control and state planning as late as 2009,<ref>http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Burma (Note: see data from 2009)</ref> liberalizations and foreign investment starting in 2011 have since given the country a much-needed gasp of air. Wikipedia now describes it as an "emerging economy".<ref>{{wpa|Economy of Myanmar#Economic liberalisation .282011-present.29}}</ref>
*The Soviet Union (USSR), and its many [[Satellite state|satellites]], before the collapse. Wasn't doing too hot.<ref name="Era"/>
*[[Vietnam]], which — like Laos — underwent market reforms in the 80s towards implementing a so-called {{wpl|Socialist-oriented market economy}}, the motivating force being an unwillingness for the nation to go belly-up economically just in exchange for staying loyal to the {{wpl|Analysis_of_Soviet-type_economic_planning|Soviet-type command economy}}.<ref>{{wpa|Socialist-oriented market economy#Reforms leading to establishment}}</ref>

===Modern examples of command economies===
*[[Belarus]], lone holdout of the former Soviet republics due to its lumbering [[Stalin]]-esque [[dictator]]ship. Not doing too hot.<ref>{{wpa|Economy of Belarus}}</ref>
*[[Cuba]], never really got off the ground due to major economic sanctions from the US,<ref>see the Cuba article on the US Department of the Treasury https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/cuba.aspx</ref> and had to mostly rely on trade with the [[USSR]]. Certain market reforms have been made in recent years, such as letting people become independent contractors (e.g. plumbers) as they can earn more going to [[consumer]]s directly this way. The Cuban government has also learned a lesson from the many boons of mixed economies — that income from (comparatively free) enterprise can be supported and [[tax]]ed, thus effectively generating more revenue for state ''and'' individual.<ref>Really, Cuba [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/28/us-cuba-reform-taxes-idUSBRE8AR05F20121128 abolished most taxation for over 30 years.]</ref> Due to ridiculous rationing and wage-fixing by the government, many highly-trained professionals make more doing jobs like ''driving cabs'' than they ever could with their official jobs.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mUZRP-fpo Why Cuban cab drivers earn more than doctors]</ref>
*[[North Korea]], a known basket case, is (despite tenuous and minor reforms in 2015) still aptly described as a "rigid centrally planned economy"<ref>{{wpa|Economy of North Korea}}</ref> — ignoring the rampant black market trading (which the government actually ''takes part in operating''<ref>https://news.vice.com/article/north-koreas-got-a-big-crystal-meth-problem</ref>), which includes participation in the international drug trade, the counterfeiting of foreign goods and currencies, human trafficking and illegal arms trading (often with other state-terrorist regimes).<ref>{{wpa|North Korea's illicit activities}}</ref> Probably the purest incarnation of a textbook command economy operating today — go figure.

===Examples that don't really count===
*[[Saudi Arabia]], whose [[oil]] findings — a random feature of its geography — is the source of the vast majority of its considerable national wealth, technically has a command economy. However, considering the nation's massive oil findings, it should be pointed out that ''basically any'' conceivable economic system which would allow exploitation and export of the nation's oil would be ''very, very hard'' to bankrupt. In other words, as far as economies successful ''by virtue of them being command economies'' goes, Saudi Arabia is quite useless as an example. Either way, Saudi Arabia is defined as a "[[Theocracy|unitary Islamic]] [[Totalitarianism|absolute monarchy]]"<ref>{{wpa|Politics of Saudi Arabia}}</ref> which never received any notable influence from [[Marxist]] thought, having been a typical monarchy living off a primitive subsistence economy ''until'' the big oil dollars started rolling in (ca mid-20th century), making Saudi Arabia the living nightmare of liberals and leftists alike — a ''filthy rich'' nation which, aside from its wealth, politically remains entirely pre-[[enlightenment]].<ref>{{wpa|Saudi Arabia#Economy}}</ref>
*The historical [[United States]] (and essentially every industrialized economy on the planet) during [[World War II]] were not command economies, but {{wpl|War_economy|war economies}}, which vary substantially from command economies. Furthermore, the US war economy more closely resembled {{wpl|military Keynesianism}} than anything else.<ref group=note>Not coincidentally, [[Military-industrial complex|armaments industries are actually one of the few things that command economies are actually ''really'' good at]], which is how the USSR was able to keep up being a military superpower into the late-80s and North Korea is able to have a nuclear arsenal despite otherwise being a total basket case. This is less useful, however, if you don’t intend to wage (or be preparing to wage) total war all the time.</ref>
*{{wpl|Dirigisme|''Dirigiste''}} economies, like post-war France, while having extensive economic planning and a large government enterprise sector, ''do'' also have extensive private sectors and a still substantial private initiative, which allows for deviation from the government's plans.
*Major companies — particularly multinationals, those holding a monopoly, or one of the few members of an oligopoly — wisely plan ahead and try to impose their prices and levels of demand on the market, instead of letting them arise "naturally" on the "free market". Naturally, this isn't really the same as operating like a command economy at all, because — aside from not relating to a nation-state, but rather to a market niche — instead of unelected Soviet goons, God-fearing capitalist goons are at the helm of those companies! And [[American dream|as we all know]], ''anyone'' could succeed at becoming a capitalist pig.

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Political theory]]
[[Category:Economic philosophies]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

Categories: Political theory, Economic philosophies, Totalitarianism