Planned vs. Market Economies

The planned and market economic systems are different ways in which different nation-states organize their economy. In a planned economy the government (which can represent different groups of people depending on the political system) or other central authority oversees and manages the production of resources and/or commodities and the distribution of goods and services. In contrast to what Karl Marx would call “economic anarchy” (where decisions in industry is left to the whims of the most powerful, and their personal interests), planned economic systems attempt to take into account the resources and services needed and even desired by the general population (ideally), including specific marginalized groups within it, and make economic projects and decisions accordingly, in an organized and sometimes democratic manner, which are implemented and enforced by the central authority (or the federal government). Market economic systems allow for capitalists to make all the decisions of industry, only limited by the amount of their wealth. Market (capitalist) economies developed a few hundred years ago and before new laws were passed to address the new social and material conditions that developed, great, single company owned monopolies developed and many atrocities were committed in the management of such wealth and the power that came with it. Whole families were living in basements of other families whose house was basically what we would consider a shack, with no electricity or running water or place to use the bathroom, and often only a bed or no bed for furniture, where the whole family slept. Many poor people who maybe because of age, race, gender or other factors could not find work, starved and died. Many others died of infectious diseases from crowded industrial cities with no regulations in place for building safety. Many children were pressured into working to support their families instead of going to school, and many workers became not much different than slaves, living at work and not having much time for anything else. Many workers could not make it to the market during weekday mornings when the freshest food was out, so they usually ate stuff that was rotten, or not chosen by others for it’s inferior quality. Fires, would erupt, toxic workplaces would cause disease, and many many accidental deaths occurred (and still do) from no regulations or enforcement of them, and many other disasters (like mining disasters which there are very interesting YouTube videos on) that occured from a simple lack of empathy for the workers by the capitalists, which is stemmed from the system itself which allows for this power over others based on inheritance, or wealth in general. In the first years of the great depression in America many hardworking people who wanted to work starved and died homeless because capitalists did not have a need for more labor, and the market system’s goal of profit deems it not necessary to employ more people than needed to make maximum profit with available capital. Because these working class people did not fit in the market’s profit plans, because these commodities (the working class individuals) were not needed to increase profit, their life and well being was not considered important to the system, and the culture of the society within it. It is here we can see, with the market (capitalist) system's systemic goal of profit, the individual actors within it, specifically the capitalists, are only doing, and will only continue to do, what increases their success (wealth and power) within the framework of the system they are in. This is why it is my opinion that we need a society who rewards those who contribute most to the bettering of others lives, not who can use their wealth and power most effectively to move up the ladder of control over the market. In response to the great depression, Americans voted FDR in, in a landslide vote, for his promise of the “new deal” which was a set of social programs (or what mainstream US media calls, “socialist policies”) that increased quality of life for many Americans and provided a safety net for those in certain specific situations of desperate need. This, and other examples, show us that our economy is considered a “mixed” economy. It is argued that there are no examples of a purely “market” or “planned” economy today, because both systems have elements of the other in the nations we observe today. While the term “mixed economy” is convenient in my opinion, I think it is necessary to point out that many of these “socialist policies in a capitalist system” are funded by imperialism (and/or often a calculated move by the ruling class, which I speak at the end of this), the capitalists of that “mixed economy” coercing or forcing other nations to allow them to buy up that country’s land and resources, and use it's workforce to extract profits from the land and resources, taking most of the profits, and the taxes and market value that come with them back to their home country. The coercion and force that imperialist nations like the United States have used to make most of the nations in the world capitalist economies, economies that with this politically enforced “capitalism” now in place allows any foreign capitalist to buy up their land and resources using their wealth, is the reason many speculate on why we have “mixed economies.” Capitalists, competing for the cheapest resources and labor across the globe are able to contribute to their own individual countries wealth, providing the money for “socialist policies” and nations that have attempted a planned economy have been coerced, pressured by sanctions of the global North, or even violently forced into allowing a private sector that the global North capitalists can leech off. The American government, with its alliance of political authorities, economic leaders like the billionaires CEOs, and military elite, has literally gone to war, some (me, and many others) would even argue, committed many genocides, in the name of it's globalist mission to force the whole world to conform to its game of “the free market,” then sent it’s capitalists to go pick the pieces, to buy up the land and resources to produce more, and higher profits. Also another relevant point is that when these social policies were first implemented, they were and still are argued by many to only be a reaction of the capitalist class to dissatisfaction of the workers, as a calculated move to give up some power now, only to not risk ending the whole system which gives them their power. They can then take those same freedoms away when time has passed and the people have calmed down and have less revolutionary potential. This has been proven many times, specifically in the Nordic countries, who it has been argued only made such beneficial social policies because the Soviet Union, the first socialist state, was right “nextdoor.” Some of the very beneficial policies of these Nordic “models of Democratic socialism” have been repealed or changed to give less help to the working class, because the threat of the influence of the USSR is not there anymore. Don't take my word for it, look it up and do your own research. In my opinion, the simple description and interpretation of “market,” “mixed,” and “planned” economies are not as telling to the actual material conditions and social forces at play.