there would be no market under central planning

it still works under supply and demand

but not under a market

The innumerable living participants in the economy, state and private, collective and individual, must serve notice of their needs and of their relative strength not only through the statistical determinations of plan commissions but by the direct pressure of supply and demand. The plan is checked and, to a considerable degree, realized through the market.

-Trotsky

did they have computers in 1924?

obviously he didn't forsee computers.

that's like asking a man of the 60s to expect what's the Internet

quantum computing today is not capable of allocating resources efficiently though

that's why the technology should be worked upon and improved on

it's still at its infancy

but linear programming is a given

technology has created new kinds of democracy, socialism and other economic concepts unbeknownst to a man couple of decades ago

so it should be worked upon, until proven superior to market forces

so what I'm saying is that, when the general populace becomes educated about socialism and becomes class conscious, it will be the final nail on the coffin for capitalism

except computer chips and supercomputers are already being designed by multiple firms and we are still decades away from a computer that *theoretically* can perfectly allocate resources

I think better education drives people away from socialism

Interesting to think that the computing solution is likely going to be brought about by a capitalist society

and supply and demand are literally market forces. so how would your system "still work under supply and demand" but "not under a market"

That's like predicting the weather more than a few days out

It can't be done.

It's probably even more complicated than the weather. It's like chaos theory. Where the variables change to quickly ad dramatically to predict what the effect of a butterflies flapping its wings will be

and the trotsky quote i posted literally had nothng to do with computers but quite literally the opposite. your computers and models have to account for human want and need that are hard to account for with computers

Yeah that's a recipe for disaster

Socialism thrives under war. Capitalism thrives better.

If you want socialism to work, there needs to be more of a communal goal other than to peacefully exist.

Capitalism is war, you compete daily to make yourself better than your competitors. Socialism is like a stagnant halt to progress, unless there is a bigger goal in mind, like getting to the moon or bankrupting the US in the Cold War.

But the individuals, I just don't see how they would feel motivated to do anything unless they are heavily propagandized by the state

@Egoy true, that's why I said we had to work on the development of quantum computing until we have reached a sufficient level of computing power to calculate economic processes. When I meant by "supply and demand" in a socialist economy, I mean this law would still be in place, as supercomputers measure the demand and supply of every commodity, and then allocate relevant amount of production to each sector.
Yes, human wants is a reflection of commodities being produced and sold, it will always account for it.

@raqdog capitalism is merely transitionary, socialism depends on the industrial base of capitalism to build itself up. Capitalism, like any other ideology, is not permenant and will give way to another economic ideology superior to itself. In a socialist society, there will be always a slight surplus of commodities, in the case of unforseen and marginal fluctuations in the consumption of consumer goods. If this is the case, supercomputers would account for it and draw back production from relevant sectors and increase production in a sector where its lacking.
Yes, socialism is a communal goal, it can only be achieved when the working class is educated about socialism and class consciousness. Socialism has nothing to do with the state, decisions are made by the people and the people alone.

Socialism IS a communal goal? Or socialism NEEDS a communal goal? That's the difference here

why do we need a competitive nature? the state, or the people actually, have far more resources than to innovate under a capitalist society, where you depend on your own capital. Innovation would skyrocket under socialism, because innovation under capitalism is only driven by profit

socialism is a communal goal

achieved by the working class united

People who generate the most successful ideas and markets in a capitalist society are hardly ever driven by just profit. Their companies end up being sustained by it and thrive off of profit because people want more of it. And it's a useful byproduct that sustains more innovation

How do you see a Silicon Valley emerge in a socialist society?

Or a spacex?

Or an amazon?

Or Walmart

oh no, this profit only benefits the bourgeois, ever since do the workers enjoy the fruits of their own labour? Profit keeps the capitalist system going, if not it would collapse. No matter what the capitalists are on a personal level, without profit, there would be no capitalism

@raqdog they would be all communally owned by the people, and thus far more resources would be allocated to it

Walgreens didn't even use a business model that accounts for profit. They accounted for number customer visits.