Letters from Tomis

An ongoing series of reflections on Marxist economics after reading What is Marxism: An Introduction into Marxist Theory by Rob Sewell and Alan Woods. The thoughts, opinions, and any errors are mine alone.

This is the last in my reflections based on What is Marxism–an excellent introduction into Marxist and Socialist thought. I highly recommend it.

Sewell, Rob, and Alan Woods. What Is Marxism? Wellred Books, 2015.

Introduction

What would a socialist planned economy look like in the twenty-first century? Far from the rigid, top-down caricatures of the past, contemporary Marxist theorists portray socialist planning as a democratic, participatory, and technologically empowered system geared toward human needs and social well-being. Thinkers such as Michael A. Lebowitz, David Harvey, Erik Olin Wright, and others have revisited the classic socialist vision and updated it for our times. They emphasize that socialism “is not a society in which people sell their ability to work and are directed from above by others whose goal is profits rather than the satisfaction of human needs.” Instead, it is a system where the economy is consciously organized by “associated producers” to meet collective needs, rather than left to the anarchic forces of the market. This essay explores how a socialist planned economy might function positively today – examining its planning mechanisms, democratic participation, non-market coordination, and the pivotal role of modern technology. Throughout, we draw on key ideas from Marxist theorists who have envisioned “a different type of socialism – still recognizably Marxian, yet substantially reformulated”  for the 21st century.

Goals and Principles of a Socialist Planned Economy

At its core, a socialist planned economy would be guided by fundamentally different goals than capitalism. Rather than maximizing profit or GDP growth, the aim is to maximize human welfare, equality, and development in harmony with ecological limits. Marxist scholars describe this as prioritizing use-values (the direct utility of goods and services) over exchange-value (market price and profit). In an ecosocialist perspective, for example, Michael Löwy argues that a sustainable socialist alternative “advances an economic policy founded on the non-monetary and extra-economic criteria of social needs and ecological equilibrium.” Achieving this requires (a) collective ownership of productive resources, (b) democratic planning to define society’s investment and production goals, and (c) a new, ecologically rational technological structure for production. In other words, society must consciously decide what to produce and how, based on social and environmental needs, rather than leaving those decisions to the market or private profit motives.

Human development is a central principle in these visions. Michael A. Lebowitz insists that socialism’s goal is the full development of human potential – the creation of what Marx called “rich human beings” with multifaceted capacities. Real wealth is measured in human growth and well-being, not the accumulation of commodities. To that end, socialist planning would direct resources toward education, health, culture, and other areas that enrich people’s lives. It would ensure everyone has access to the means of development (from nutritious food and housing to education and leisure time) as a matter of right. As Lebowitz explains, “Socialism for the twenty-first century is not a statist society where decisions are top-down…It rejects a state that stands over and above society.” Instead, people must be the protagonists in deciding and directing economic activity, both for their own self-development and for the common good. This vision consciously breaks with both capitalism and the bureaucratic-command model of the past: “stale, top-down theses of social transformation through statist planning” are rejected in favor of bottom-up organizing and participation by workers and communities.

Crucially, modern Marxist theorists emphasize that socialist planning is inseparable from democracy. Lebowitz and others stress that socialism and “protagonistic democracy” – active, empowered participation by the masses – “are one.” The old idea of an all-powerful central planner dictating outcomes is firmly rejected. Instead, the planning process itself must be thoroughly democratic, with decisions made by the people who those decisions affect. As Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell put it, “the principal bases for a post-Soviet socialism must be radical democracy and efficient planning.” Democracy is not a luxury to be added later; without democratic control, a planned economy would either stagnate or slide into authoritarianism. Conversely, planning is seen as a precondition for real democracy, enabling society to collectively decide its destiny rather than leaving fundamental choices to the whims of the market or a wealthy elite. In short, the overarching principle is that people should consciously and collectively regulate the economy to serve human needs. This entails a shift in power – from capital and markets to workers and communities – and a shift in purpose – from profit to social well-being and development.

Democratic Participation in Economic Planning

A defining feature of a socialist planned economy is the deep democratic participation of workers and citizens in economic decision-making. Contemporary Marxist thinkers outline various mechanisms to ensure that those who produce the wealth and those affected by economic decisions have a direct say in them. Democracy in this context operates at multiple levels: workplace, community, and society-wide.

Workplace democracy means that enterprises are run by the workers themselves (often in cooperation with broader social objectives). Rather than bosses or technocrats issuing orders, workers would manage production collectively and self-manage their workplaces. This idea, rooted in Marx’s vision of the “associated producers,” is echoed in many 21st-century proposals. For example, Article 70 of Venezuela’s 1999 Bolivarian Constitution (inspired by socialist principles and cited by Lebowitz) promotes “self-management, co-management, [and] cooperatives in all forms” as forms of association guided by mutual cooperation and solidarity. In practice, this could mean worker cooperatives and elected workplace councils that plan production in line with community needs rather than for private profit. Michael Lebowitz notes that in Venezuela’s socialist experiments, new workers’ councils have been formed, giving employees collective control and aligning production with social goals. When workers directly manage their factories or offices, they become active subjects rather than cogs in a machine – an embodiment of the Marxist idea that people “change themselves” through the process of collectively changing their circumstances.

Community and local planning are equally vital. Planning is not only an enterprise-level activity but happens in neighborhoods, cities, and regions through democratic assemblies. Lebowitz highlights the role of “communal councils, where people in their neighborhoods are beginning to direct activity toward the satisfaction of communal needs.” Such local councils, made up of residents, can deliberate on community needs – whether it’s infrastructure, schools, healthcare, or cultural facilities – and allocate resources accordingly. This is often paired with participatory budgeting, a process by which citizens directly decide how to spend a portion of public funds. Indeed, Lebowitz points out that “democratic planning and participatory budgeting at all levels of society” are key lessons of 21st-century socialism. The famous example of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil (notably analyzed by Erik Olin Wright as a “Real Utopia” experiment), showed that ordinary people can collectively decide budget priorities for their city, resulting in more equitable and needs-focused outcomes. Wright strongly endorses such approaches, arguing that “participatory planning of public goods – at the neighborhood level and beyond – will be a critical feature of a post-capitalist, democratic egalitarian economy.” In these models, citizens come together in assemblies or planning councils to discuss proposals and set plans for their local economies, ensuring that investment and development align with what people actually need in their daily lives.

At the societal level, democratic planning takes on larger questions of investment, production goals, and resource allocation for the nation or region as a whole. Different theorists have proposed various institutional designs to make large-scale planning democratic. One innovative model is described by Cockshott and Cottrell, who advocate for a system of “radical democracy” they term demarchy – essentially, governance by randomly selected citizen juries. In their proposal, planning juries made up of ordinary citizens (selected by sortition) would be empowered to review and choose among economic plans. The central planning agency would not be dictatorial; it would draft proposals and provide data, but the final decisions on plans would be made by these representative citizen juries, ensuring oversight by the populace. Additionally, nationwide referenda could be held on major policy questions, enabled by modern communication (e.g. voting via secure internet or phone systems). This two-tiered approach – direct citizen juries for detailed planning and broad referendums for big-picture choices – aims to prevent the emergence of a new bureaucratic elite by vesting ultimate authority in the people themselves. The underlying principle is that democratic control prevents both private exploitation and state exploitation. When people have the power to decide goals and monitor implementation, the economy can no longer be bent to serve a narrow class interest; it must serve the common interest.

Even without adopting a lottery-based jury model, many Marxist thinkers agree that open public debate and transparency must surround economic planning. David Harvey, for instance, argues that questions of “what to produce” and “how to use the social surplus” should be subject to collective deliberation rather than left to the market or technocrats. He notes that under neoliberal ideology “planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom,” but in reality true freedom requires democratic social control of production. A socialist perspective, Harvey suggests, “collectivize[s] the question of access” to basic needs like housing, taking them out of the market and into the public domain through democratic decision-making. In practical terms, this means housing, healthcare, education, and other essential sectors would be managed by public institutions with citizen input, rather than by private companies. The planning process would involve hearings, consultations, and votes – the kind of political engagement that treats economic decisions as public decisions.

In sum, democratic participation in a socialist economy would likely be institutionalized through a combination of workers’ self-management, local assemblies and councils, participatory budgeting, citizen planning juries, and nationwide referenda or policy congresses. The result is an economic governance structure radically more democratic than anything seen under capitalism. As Michael Lebowitz observes, the hallmark of “a new humanist socialism” is “the centrality of protagonistic democracy (within the workplace and the community).” People become active participants in shaping economic outcomes, which not only produces better-informed decisions but also has an educative, transformative effect on the participants themselves. This deep democracy stands in stark contrast to both corporate capitalist management and the bureaucratic command planning of the 20th century, charting a path for socialism that is thoroughly democratic in spirit and form.

Coordination Without Markets: Planning Mechanisms for Allocation

One of the biggest questions for any planned economy is how to coordinate production and distribution without relying on markets. In capitalism, markets coordinate billions of decisions through the price mechanism – but often in chaotic or cruel ways, and always biased by the unequal power of those with more money. Socialist planners seek to replace the blind force of the market with rational, democratic coordination. Contemporary Marxist economists argue that modern planning mechanisms can allocate resources efficiently while avoiding both the anarchy of markets and the hierarchies of central command.

A key insight is that many large systems are already coordinated without markets. Multinational corporations internally allocate resources via administrative planning; urban infrastructure and public services are often distributed by government planning. Socialists propose to extend such coordination to the entire economy in a democratic way. As early as the 1920s-30s socialist calculation debate, Marxists like Otto Neurath envisioned a moneyless economy of “calculation in kind.” Today’s theorists build on those ideas with far more advanced tools. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell have outlined one detailed model of comprehensive planning. In their vision, society would use the labor theory of value as a guiding metric: “consumer goods are priced in terms of the hours and minutes of labour it took to make them,” and each worker would receive labor credits for the hours they work. These labor credits (denominated in hours) function as a non-market accounting system: you earn, say, 40 credits for 40 hours of work, and you spend those credits on goods priced by the labor required to produce them. This system ensures that no individual can take more out of the social product than they put in – effectively eliminating exploitation, since “each worker is paid [in full] for each hour worked,” with no capitalist skimming off surplus value. Money as we know it would disappear; in its place, a transparent accounting of labor and resources would guide production and consumption.

Under such a model, industry is publicly owned and production is organized according to a democratic plan, not for profit. Enterprises would operate on a use-value basis – for instance, stores aim to break even rather than maximize profit. But how, one might ask, would planners know what and how much to produce of each good? Cockshott and Cottrell acknowledge the importance of feedback from consumers. They propose to allow a market-like interaction for consumer goods within the planned economy to signal preferences. In their model, prices of consumer goods would initially be set equal to their labor-content (so prices reflect true social cost in labor terms). If a product is more desired than anticipated and starts selling out, its price would start to rise above the labor-cost; this rise signals that demand exceeds supply. Planners would then respond by allocating more resources to produce that good, increasing supply until the price returns to equilibrium at labor-cost. Conversely, if a good is over-produced and unsold inventory piles up (price falls below labor-cost), the plan would scale back its production. In this way, supply is dynamically adjusted to meet demand, using price movements as an information signal without allowing profit-seeking or market anarchy to take over. Importantly, there is no capitalist competition here – firms aren’t chasing profit margins, and prices are administratively managed rather than left to speculate – but consumers still have freedom of choice and influence over what is produced. This approach can be seen as a hybrid model: planning sets the overall framework and initial targets, while a regulated market mechanism fine-tunes the output to match consumer desires. The result, proponents argue, is that “supply would meet demand” for consumer goods, avoiding both gluts and shortages, yet “the consistent application of [labor-value pricing] eliminates economic exploitation” entirely.

Other socialist proposals emphasize participatory negotiation in place of markets. For example, Robin Hahnel (in dialogue with Erik Olin Wright) describes a system of iterative participatory planning where worker councils and consumer councils propose and revise their production and consumption plans in light of each other, coming into balance through democratic deliberation rather than competitive bidding. Wright notes that various combinations of “participatory planning, centralized regulations, and market interactions” can be envisioned, and different sectors might be coordinated by different methods. He does not insist on abolishing every vestige of markets overnight, but he stresses that non-market coordination (especially democratic planning for public goods) should play the dominant role in a socialist economy. The common thread is that investment and production decisions become conscious collective choices. Society can decide, for example, to rapidly expand renewable energy, build housing for all, or reduce output in polluting industries, based on democratic priorities – tasks the capitalist market notoriously fails to do when profit is absent. As Michael Löwy succinctly puts it, “democratic planning makes it possible for society to define the goals of investment and production” according to social and ecological criteria. Instead of growth for growth’s sake, the plan can pursue goals like equality, sustainability, and community well-being.

Additionally, socialist planning entails a different approach to distribution and incentives. Without markets, money incomes, and profit, how do people get what they need and what motivates them to work? Marxist theorists offer several solutions: in early stages, systems like labor credits or rationing of scarce goods can ensure fairness; in higher stages, abundance in many goods allows free distribution according to need. Cockshott and Cottrell’s labor-credit scheme, for instance, is paired with measures to prevent any resurgence of capitalism: the credits are non-transferable (you cannot trade or hoard them) and expire if not used within a certain period. This prevents wealth accumulation and creates an economy of use it or lose it – encouraging consumption of one’s earnings but not speculation or saving to dominate others. They also suggest paying people for education and training (since education is socially valuable labor), so that professional workers do not later demand higher pay simply because of their qualifications. Everyone’s contribution of work is valued in the same unit (labor hours), fostering equality. As for motivation, socialists contend that without exploitation and with the knowledge that one’s work benefits the community, work can become a meaningful activity rather than drudgery. Moreover, with the elimination of profit-driven inefficiencies, a planned economy could potentially reduce the average workweek and still meet everyone’s needs. In fact, one goal of socialist planning is explicitly to shorten the workday and increase free time for all. Since there is no imperative to extract surplus labor for profit, productivity gains can translate into less required labor. Cockshott and Cottrell argue that a socialist economy oriented toward minimizing necessary labor time would likely outpace capitalism in adopting labor-saving technology (because under capitalism, using technology to reduce labor often threatens profits unless forced by competition). Under socialism, if a new machine can produce the same output with fewer work hours, society can happily adopt it and shorten the work week for workers, rather than causing unemployment. In their words, productivity and automation would be used “to reduce the length of the working week, therefore ensuring the elimination of unemployment and the maximization of free time.” This highlights a broader logic: economic coordination without markets allows decisions based on human needs – e.g. the need for leisure, health, and a clean environment – rather than on what is profitable.

Of course, removing markets also removes the capitalist business cycle and the compulsion for endless growth. David Harvey points out that capitalism’s requirement of compound growth is fundamentally at odds with environmental limits. A planned socialist economy could deliberately choose a zero-growth or steady-state path if more production is not needed, focusing instead on redistributing resources and improving quality of life. Indeed, in a speech Harvey argued that “an alternative has to exist in which there’s a zero-growth economy… And there’s only one way to do it, and that’s to end capitalism,” explicitly advocating socialist planning as the way forward. Planning allows society to dial down certain industries, ramp up others, and allocate resources for long-term sustainability – actions a market left to itself cannot accomplish because it prioritizes short-term profit. In a democratic plan, if the people decide that saving our ecosystems or combating climate change is a top priority, they can channel labor and resources accordingly, even if it means producing less of other goods. Michael Löwy notes that mainstream Green ideas often fail because they leave the market in place; in contrast, eco-socialism posits that only democratic planning (with public ownership) can resolve the contradiction between endless capital accumulation and ecological sustainability.

In summary, economic coordination without markets would rely on conscious planning algorithms and institutions to balance supply and demand, guided by democratically determined priorities. Whether through labor-time accounting, participatory proposal systems, or other innovative mechanisms, the aim is to replace the competitive, profit-driven allocation with a cooperative, needs-driven allocation. Markets as the dominant coordinator are replaced by public deliberation, scientific analysis, and feedback systems embedded in a democratic plan. While different theorists offer different blueprints, all agree on the fundamentals: key resources are socially owned, investment is socially decided, and distribution follows a criteria of equity and need rather than ability to pay. The result is an economy that is rational in a broader sense – not just efficient in producing widgets, but rational in meeting human goals and respecting natural limits.

The Role of Technology in Modern Planning

Technology plays a transformative role in the viability of socialist planning today. One reason early 20th-century planning often faltered was the lack of adequate information processing tools – critics like Ludwig von Mises famously argued that a complex economy could never be efficiently planned because the information required was too immense and diffuse. However, contemporary Marxist economists counter that the information technology revolution has fundamentally changed this calculus. We now have computational capacities undreamt of in the era of Mises or even the Soviet Gosplan.

Advanced computing and big data can vastly simplify the tasks of economic planning. Cockshott and Cottrell, addressing the old “calculation debate,” point out that performing large-scale calculations that would have taken months or years by hand in the 1930s can be done in fractions of a second with modern computers. For instance, calculating an optimal plan that balances millions of equations (representing inputs and outputs of industries) is easily within reach using contemporary algorithms and computing clusters. They note that not only has raw computing power increased exponentially, but improvements in planning algorithms (operations research, linear programming, machine learning optimization techniques) have made solving complex allocation problems more efficient than before. In practical terms, this means a central planning body could gather data on resources, production capacities, and needs, and then compute a coherent plan (or several plan options) that best meets the criteria set by society (e.g., minimal labor cost, minimal carbon emissions, etc.). What once was a mathematical nightmare can now be handled by software in moments.

Equally important is the revolution in communications technology – particularly the Internet of today – which enables real-time data collection and decentralized input. “Production and consumption data can be collected with an ease that would have been inconceivable in the past,” one analysis observes, highlighting how networked computers and digital databases allow planners to know consumption patterns almost instantly across vast areas. Indeed, large corporations and governments already collect enormous data on consumer behavior, logistics, and inventories (think of Walmart’s supply chain or Amazon’s data-driven warehouse management) – a socialist plan would harness these capacities for the public good. With modern ICT, a planned economy could be highly responsive: factories can report output in real time, stores can report stock levels and sales, and consumers could even directly input their needs or orders into a public system. This mitigates the information problem that plagued earlier attempts at planning. Chile’s famous Project Cybersyn in the early 1970s was a pioneering effort to use computers and telex machines to manage the economy in real-time; although cut short by a coup, it demonstrated the potential of cybernetic planning. Today’s internet and AI are orders of magnitude more powerful, making cybernetic economic management a feasible prospect on a national or even global scale.

Automation and AI could further enhance planning. Machine learning algorithms might forecast consumer demand more accurately than chaotic market fluctuations do, or optimize distribution routes in ways individual truckers in a market system cannot. A socialist plan could employ predictive analytics to anticipate needs (for example, increasing medical supplies production if an outbreak is predicted, rather than waiting for prices to spike). In energy management, smart grids and AI could continuously balance supply and demand for electricity far more rationally than a deregulated power market that swings between glut and blackout. In short, technology can provide planners with the nervous system and intelligence to coordinate a complex economy in detail.

Furthermore, technology is crucial for facilitating democratic participation on the scale of millions of people. Online platforms can enable large assemblies or voting processes without everyone having to physically gather (though face-to-face assemblies are also emphasized for local decisions). As mentioned, Cockshott and Cottrell envision referendums conducted through ICT systems so that “anyone with phone or internet access” can take part in major social decisions. Secure digital systems (possibly blockchain-based for transparency) could be used to manage voting and ensure integrity of democratic inputs into the plan. Likewise, participatory budgeting can be augmented by apps and websites that allow community members to propose and rank projects. We already see glimpses of this with e-governance tools in some cities. The point is that modern technology can drastically lower the coordination costs of mass participation, making democracy more direct and continuous.

Technology also underpins the socialist aim of abundance in essential goods. By accelerating innovation and eliminating the irrationalities of competition (like redundant parallel R&D on the same product by different firms), a planned system could focus technological development on solving pressing human problems. For example, rather than having multiple pharma companies racing and patenting drugs (driven by profit potential), a publicly planned effort could coordinate researchers to develop needed medicines (as seen in the cooperative development of the polio vaccine, or more recently some aspects of COVID-19 vaccine collaborations). Freed from proprietary secrecy and duplication, science and technology might advance more efficiently. Additionally, automation technology, if used to serve people, can increase output of basic necessities with minimal labor, contributing to a realm of abundance where things like food, shelter, or public transportation are readily available to all. The ultimate vision (in the far future) is that advanced productive forces allow a shift to the communist principle: “From each according to ability, to each according to need,” where planning ensures everyone’s needs are met and work becomes increasingly voluntary and creative.

That said, Marxist humanists caution that technology is not a panacea on its own. Michael Lebowitz warns against “worship[ing] technology and productive forces” for their own sake. The Soviet Union’s experience showed that chasing gigantism and heavy industry in the name of progress led to ecological destruction and alienation. Socialist planning would deploy technology, but within the guidance of social and ecological values – technique subordinated to democratic purpose. As Lebowitz notes, 21st-century socialism does not make development of technology an end in itself; it values technology insofar as it serves human development and environmental stewardship. Therefore, while algorithms might help balance a plan, the goals and constraints (like emissions targets, labor standards, etc.) come from democratic deliberation. In a sense, technology provides the tools and platform for planning, but the vision and values come from the people.

In conclusion, the role of technology in socialist planning is empowering and enabling. It shatters the old argument that complex planning is unworkable and opens new possibilities for both efficiency and democratic engagement. As one observer put it, “There are new possibilities available to us now that simply did not exist in the past.” High-speed computation, global networks, and automation can be harnessed to create an economy that is at once highly organized and deeply democratic. In the hands of a socialist society, technology becomes a means to coordinate our shared efforts rationally and humanely, rather than a means for surveillance or profit maximization. The challenge is ensuring that these powerful tools are guided by and accountable to the public – a challenge the democratic structures discussed earlier are meant to meet.

Contemporary Models and Theorists: Pathways to Democratic Planning

Drawing on the above themes, contemporary Marxist thinkers have proposed concrete models and transitional steps toward a socialist planned economy. While they share common principles, they sometimes differ in emphasis or strategy. Here we highlight contributions of a few key theorists and how their ideas illustrate the working of a planned socialist system:

• Michael A. Lebowitz – Socialism as an Organic Democracy: Lebowitz’s writings (e.g. “The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development” and “Build It Now: Socialism for the 21st Century”) stress that socialism must be built by the masses themselves through continuous practice. He envisions a society of empowered communities and workers, where planning is “determined by communal needs and purposes” and carried out through institutions people create in struggle. Lebowitz draws inspiration from experiments in Latin America, especially Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. He notes that the Venezuelan constitution embeds “the identification of democratic planning and participatory budgeting at all levels of society” and promotes forms of cooperative production. In Lebowitz’s view, the economy would be planned through a network of worker councils, communal councils, and a state apparatus completely subordinated to these grassroots bodies. The state’s role is to facilitate and coordinate – to help “create new organs for co-operatively planning the distribution of society’s labor” to meet the workers’ needs for development. He emphasizes that socialism is a process, not a one-time decree: people develop new capacities and transform themselves (“rich human development”) through the very act of participatory planning and self-management. Lebowitz is optimistic that when armed with democratic control and a focus on human need, a planned economy can outperform capitalism morally and even materially, by unleashing collective creativity. He famously echoes Che Guevara’s sentiment that “There is an alternative. And it can be struggled for in every country. We can try to build that socialism now…” – underscoring his positive, activist orientation to making planning work through active mass participation.

• David Harvey – Rebel Cities and Collective Provision: David Harvey, as a Marxist geographer, approaches socialist planning from the angle of urbanization and the use of the commons. He argues that many freedoms touted by capitalism are illusory, and genuine freedom requires democratic control over the collective conditions of life. In works like “Rebel Cities” and essays on the right to the city, Harvey advocates urban planning driven by social needs rather than real estate markets. For example, he points out that housing under capitalism became a speculative commodity, leading to shortages and high costs, whereas a socialist approach would treat housing as a public good. Harvey’s vision of a planned economy involves reclaiming key sectors (housing, education, healthcare, transit, energy) into the public domain and making their provisioning a democratic decision. He famously stated that “Socialists must be the champions of freedom,” meaning freedom from the market’s compulsions – like the freedom to have secure housing, which is only possible if society plans and guarantees it. In a 2010 talk, Harvey went so far as to say that investigating socialist planning should be “our top priority,” because endless growth capitalism is untenable. While he doesn’t provide a single blueprint, Harvey implies a multi-layered planning process: community control over local development, worker control in workplaces, and democratic state direction of investment (especially for social and environmental aims). He also stresses the need for collective coordination on a global scale to address issues like climate change – something market competition between nations cannot solve. In summary, Harvey contributes an insistence that planning is not about restricting freedom, but about enabling collective freedom – the freedom that comes when people democratically decide to put resources toward meeting everyone’s basic needs. His work encourages us to imagine cities and economies built for people, not profit, through participatory planning.

• Erik Olin Wright – Real Utopias and Hybrid Coordination: Erik Olin Wright spent much of his career exploring “real utopias” – transformative institutions that prefigure a socialist future. In “Envisioning Real Utopias” (2010) and later “How to Be an Anti-Capitalist in the 21st Century” (2019), Wright acknowledged that past centralized planning was often authoritarian, and he looked for more decentralized, democratic approaches. He was open to a plurality of economic forms within an overall socialist framework, envisioning a mix of state, market, and social power. For instance, he saw a role for social markets (e.g. cooperatives trading with each other) alongside planning. Nonetheless, he strongly endorsed expanding democratic planning especially for public goods and investment decisions. Wright highlighted institutions like participatory budgeting as exemplars of how deliberative planning can work. He wrote that “participatory planning of public goods…provides a radical extension of participatory budgeting” and is essential for a democratic egalitarian economy. Education, healthcare, public infrastructure, and environmental actions would be deliberated by empowered public bodies rather than left to the market or technocrats. For private consumption choices, Wright engaged in dialogue with advocates of participatory economics, sometimes expressing skepticism about trying to micro-plan every consumer good via complex council iterations. He believed some mix of mechanisms might best balance individual autonomy and collective rationality. Wright’s strategic vision for getting to a socialist economy involved interstitial transformations – building up democratic economic forms in the shell of the old (like cooperatives, community land trusts, commons-based peer production such as Wikipedia) and symbiotic transformations – using the state to support expansions of the social economy. Over time, these could grow while capitalist elements shrink. In a mature socialist society as Wright imagined, much of the economy would indeed be planned and socially controlled, but it would not feel like a monolithic plan; rather, it would be a federated network of democratically governed units coordinating with each other at various levels. His contribution lies in emphasizing the feasibility of democratic planning by pointing to actually existing prototypes – real utopias – and arguing that socialism might emerge through the iterative improvement and scaling up of these participatory institutions.

• Paul Cockshott & Allin Cottrell – Cybernetic Planning and Labor Accounting: Cockshott and Cottrell, though somewhat outside the mainstream, offer one of the most detailed proposals for a planned economy in their book “Towards a New Socialism” (1993). Their model is worth summarizing as it ties together many of the themes discussed. They propose:

1. Labor-Time Planning – All goods and services would be accounted in terms of labor hours. This provides a common unit for planning and replaces money prices. Consumers spend labor credits, and the plan ensures prices (in labor-hours) reflect true costs.

2. Public Ownership & No Markets for Production – Enterprises are publicly owned and operate according to a central plan, not competing in markets. This eliminates the drive for profit. Retail is organized to serve consumers’ needs on a cost-only basis.

3. Democratic Decision-Making – Key decisions (such as overall investment levels, major projects, and income distribution) are made democratically. Locally, workers and citizens govern their workplaces and communities; nationally, decisions about taxing and spending priorities are made by popular vote or representatives. This prevents a bureaucratic elite from replacing capitalist owners – economic power truly resides in the public.

4. Feedback Mechanism for Consumer Goods – A regulated consumer goods market provides demand signals to planners. If demand exceeds supply for a product, its price in labor credits rises; planners then increase output of it. If supply exceeds demand, price falls; output is reduced. This loop corrects imbalances efficiently.

5. Use of Advanced Computing – A central planning agency uses powerful computers to solve input-output equations and optimize resource allocation, subject to constraints (e.g. resource limits, environmental goals). ICT networks transmit data from production units and consumption points continuously.

6. “Demarchy” Governance – Political authority is vested in citizens’ councils and randomly selected juries for oversight. The planning agency is accountable to these citizen bodies, which choose among plan options and audit performance. Broader policies are ratified by referenda.

7. Labor Incentives and Equality – Everyone capable contributes labor and gets an equal hourly rate in credits. To maintain egalitarianism, labor credits are non-transferable and cannot turn into capital. Education, healthcare, and other needs are free. Those who cannot work are supported by society. Over time, as productivity increases, the standard of living rises for all while work hours decrease.

This model showcases one plausible way a socialist planned economy could work in practice, marrying democratic governance with computational coordination. It explicitly addresses the incentive and information problems: people are incentivized by receiving the full product of their labor, and information flows are handled by modern tech with democratic checks. Notably, Cockshott and Cottrell differentiate their model from the Soviet system: rather than arbitrary quotas set by a distant bureaucracy, theirs uses real-time feedback and democratic input to guide planning. The economy is oriented toward meeting needs and reducing toil, which they argue would be more efficient in human terms than capitalism’s chaotic boom/bust cycles and wasteful inequalities. While one can debate specifics, their work powerfully rebuts the notion that complex modern economies cannot be planned – on the contrary, they show it is technically feasible and socially desirable to do so.

These theorists (and others, such as socialist feminists who emphasize caring labor, or ecosocialists focusing on climate planning) collectively paint a picture of a planned economy that is democratic, responsive, and oriented to human flourishing. They acknowledge the failures or limitations of past attempts, learning lessons to avoid authoritarianism or inefficiency. The emphasis on democratic structures (councils, assemblies, juries) is designed to ensure the planning process serves the many, not a new few. The incorporation of feedback mechanisms (whether via regulated markets or iterative planning rounds) is meant to keep the system flexible and responsive to actual needs and preferences. And the deployment of modern technology is a game-changer that can dramatically increase the scope and accuracy of planning.

Conclusion

In a world facing profound crises – from economic inequality to climate change – the idea of a socialist planned economy has re-emerged in contemporary Marxist discourse as not only desirable but necessary. Far from the centralized, drab stereotype of yesteryear, the new vision of socialist planning is decentralized in execution but coordinated in purpose, and above all, deeply democratic. It is an economy where working people and communities decide the what, how, and why of production. Factories and farms produce to satisfy human needs rather than to satisfy shareholders’ hunger for profit. Neighborhoods and cities participate in deciding their development priorities. Technology is harnessed to serve society, enabling informed decision-making and efficiency in allocation. Ecological stewardship is built into planning decisions, as society can weigh long-term environmental impacts above short-term gains – something capitalism has failed to do. As Michael Löwy noted, only democratic planning allows us to “subordinate profit to human survival”, aligning the economy with the requirements of sustainability.

The positive tone struck by these theorists is important. They are not naive about the challenges – they recognize that “socialism doesn’t drop from the sky,” as Lebowitz quips, but must be fought for and built through practice. Yet they show us that “there is an alternative” to the present system. By drawing on experiments and models from around the world (worker cooperatives, participatory budgets, public healthcare systems, etc.), we can see the embryo of socialist planning already in action. Scaling these up and knitting them together with advanced planning methods could yield an economy that is rational, just, and free in the fullest sense.

In a planned economy anchored in democratic participation, people would likely experience greater control over their work and lives. Decisions that are today left to “the market” – which really means left to the richest and most powerful – would instead be subject to reasoned public debate. This does not imply a chaos of endless meetings, but rather a new architecture of economic governance where everyone has a voice through institutions at different levels. As Erik Olin Wright observed, every step toward such empowerment also helps cultivate the cooperative, knowledgeable citizenry that a socialist society needs. Thus, the process of building democratic planning is itself transformative.

No single blueprint has all the answers, and in practice any socialist society would need to adapt models to its unique context. But the ideas of Lebowitz, Harvey, Wright, Cockshott, and others provide compelling guiding stars. They converge on the notion that democracy, equality, and planning must advance hand in hand. Planning is not viewed as the opposite of freedom, but as the realization of collective freedom – the freedom to democratically shape our economic future and meet our shared needs.

In conclusion, a socialist planned economy in the 21st century would work through the conscious organization of production by society itself. It would harness modern science and technology under the guidance of democratically determined goals. It would coordinate without the chaos of markets, yet preserve flexibility and innovation through feedback and participation. Such an economy would seek to eliminate exploitation, use the surplus for common good, and ensure that no one is left behind in meeting the necessities of life. As ambitious as this sounds, it is portrayed not as a utopian fantasy but as a logical and necessary evolution – one that is increasingly conceivable in our era of information abundance and grassroots democratic renewal. The message from contemporary Marxist theorists is ultimately hopeful: by planning our economy collectively, we can open the path to a society that is more just, more rational, and more humane. “We can try to build that socialism now,” and in doing so, liberate the tremendous potential for human development and cooperation that capitalism has held back.