The idea of a centralised planned state fell with the USSR, and it was widely argued that it fell _because_ of central planning. China is becoming a counter-example for the people who have always been fond of the idea of having a state ruled by an "elite", with the perception that democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning.
The world changed in a very significant way over the last 70 years. Even more so over the last 20 years. It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC. Now it’s a synchronous call with satellite footage of every inch of the earth. It may very be that centralized planned economies are now the superior model and only the test of time will unveil which is true.
I’ve lost a bit of sleep wondering about this over the years.
Central planning hasn’t been “hard to implement” its been a absolute disaster not just due to information scarcity, but for the same reason massive organizations in free markets rot from within.
> It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC.
There are more and less (de)centralized democracies. The US (and others) are formed from federated regional governments:
As for democracies: one problem with non-democracies is negative feedback can be difficult. If things are headed in a bad direction, it can be hard to get that message through to those in charge if they lean autocratic and become isolated from reality. Folks are afraid to bear bad news because messenger get shot (proverbially or literally).
> the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC
Telegraphs were used in the 1840s [1]. They went transatlantic in the 1850s [2]. The game change is not in modern autocracies being better at planning. It's in surveillance. What took the KGB and Stasi armies of informants filling cabinets of index cards can now be run out of a single data centre by a small team of loyalists.
The common failure mode of centralized systems, peaceful transitions of power and/or long-run economic power, is thus not addressed. (Founders have a decent record, at least in their early years [3]. But with each subsequent generation, the gap between the stability of monarchies and eccentricity of dictatorships widens. Putin is a first-generation autocrat. Xi is a bit more complicated, though I'd argue the CCP hasn't had power so concentrated since Mao, and China barely limped through that transition.
Maybe the efficiency gains in surveillance and repression will turn what would have been a revolutionary failure into a slow-burn diminishment. Whereas previously a resistance could have festered and grown, today it can be nipped in the bud, preventing the internal power competition that rejuvenates the system.
On the other hand, the Information Age might for the first time in history enable true democracy, where every political decision can instantaneously be made by the voting populous. (not that farce of a democracy where a highspeed jet is allegedly steered by the binary input of "left" or "right" every four years)
> the Information Age might for the first time in history enable true democracy
We’ve had true democracy. It doesn’t work. It careens into majoritarianism while hyperpartisanship tears it apart. The American system balances democracy against oligarchic and monarchic stabilisers. One could argue that our present situation results from forgetting the need for that balance.
Governments can be learning organizations, especially when they have long time horizons and balance agenda with reality. If anything, I think China has shown that central planning can work and is even the envy of Western leaders (see: Canadian PM Trudeau's admiration).
The implicit agreement in China is that in exchange for your freedom, you receive prosperity.
Russia - especially after the West seriously damages their economy - can easily form a similar narrative, especially when the West is being sadistic about it. Nationalize most things now when the equity is dirt-cheap because unwise Western governments have forced the hands of banks, investors, and funds; then privatize things as the new anointed class rises. Key for them will be to reward merit and capability, not just loyalty.
China doesn't have a centrally planned economy though. It certainly has a lot of state intervention, but resources are primarily allocated through market mechanisms.
Much of its industrial policy actually resembles that of democratic states like Korea and Japan.
I'd argue China's experience presents a great argument for a mixed market economy that allows state intervention, while also recognising the importance of markets and decentralised economic coordination.
However, we shouldn't overhype China's progress. The fact of the matter is that China was always destined to become an economic juggernaut given its population size, stability, and resources.
It's just China had been tied down by Mao and his supporters managed to hijack the government for several decades and hindered China's ascent with their whacky policies. We're now seeing it snap back to where it belongs.
> democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning
Which is moot, because the USSR planning model also had 5 year plans. Also some European democracies are run by a coalition. See for example the Nederlands and also Germany to a lower degree. It's less efficient in case of armed conflict, but most people are represented in times of peace.
