Talk:Socialist calculation debate

The link to L. Kantorovich page is broken and the name is mispelled. It should be "Leonid" (not Leonoid). The page is: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Leonid_Kantorovich

Kropotkin, among others

The section under Foundations names Kropotkin as one of the "proponents of decentralized economic planning or market socialism". This is ambiguous and possibly misleading - Kropotkin was a "proponent of decentralized economic planning", but he did not promote market socialism in any form; he was a market abolitionist.

And...

"However, no detailed outlines for decentralized economic planning were proposed by these thinkers at this time."

Untrue in the case of Kropotkin (and Engels and Trotsky, for that matter). Kropotkin's Fields, Factories and Workshops explores just that question of practical implementation. His Conquest of Bread suggests how these social structures might be built in the midst of the revolutionary moment itself. His letters to communist colonies show broad outlines as well as direct proposals in specific groups. And his critiques of collectivist anarchist and labor note currency are coupled with his suggestions of how to handle these issues of organization without instituting markets or wages.

This section needs a re-write. Jim Casy (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable secondary sources that outline his specific proposals for economic coordination and valuation of resources? If so, it definitely deserves a mention in this article. Incidentally, I have not come across any mention of Kropotkin's model in any of the economic literature on socialist calculation. -Battlecry 00:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cockshot and Cottrell / Cybernetic

no where in towards a new socialism does C&C claim their system to be 'cybernetic'. merely using information technology does not make a system 'cybernetic'. Cybernetics is an independent discipline related to systems research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.248.36 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Caplan =

I am quite certain Caplan has repeatedly stated, that between the calculation problem and the incentive problem the incentive problem is the more serious and should be the subject of criticism, where the calculation problem is simply horribly inefficient and unsustainable, and that the incentive problem worsens the calculation problem. As far as I know this is the consensus today. As such I'm pretty sure the paragraph under criticism misrepresents his position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:6134:AA68:3C8B:BC7D (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "Why Socialism" in See Also section

I removed the mention of Albert Einstein's Why Socialism? in the See Also section of this page because it is a work that does not address the socialist calculation debate, nor is cited anywhere in the article. However, @Generalrelative has reverted my edit, saying plainly that it is in the scope of "See also" sections. I thought that the inclusion of this was a small mistake, not a "great wrong" by any means; I just don't see why this work in particular is the only one cited in "see also". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must also add that, regarding WP guidelines on "see also"; it reads, "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense " I think this is a question of common sense; I think the common sense here is that it is not relevant, because it a) does not address - even tangentially - the topic, nor b) is not cited in the source, as well as c) is the only text referred to in the SA section. That's my two cents; this is a very minor thing to worry about. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's essay is not just a defense of socialism but a defense of planned economy, which is very much the issue at the heart of the socialist calculation debate. Further, Einstein distinguished the general concept of economic planning from true socialism (the former being necessary but insufficient to ensure the latter). He was also part of the same intellectual milieu as the main contenders in the debate. The essay is informative to lay readers curious to know more about the intellectual and popular background of the debate. Generalrelative (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]