In our previous article, we dismantled the persistent myth that “planning can’t work,” highlighting how modern computing, artificial intelligence, and realtime data have made largescale coordination more feasible than ever. But theory alone can only persuade so far; the working class demands evidence. This article examines real-world experiences from Soviet industrialisation to Kerala’s contemporary People’s Plan Campaign, showing planned economies at work—sometimes brilliantly, sometimes imperfectly—but always shaped by class struggle and geopolitical tensions.
Crucially, planning is not exclusive to socialism. Multinational corporations such as DHL, Boeing, Nestlé, and Maersk operate vast internal command economies, coordinating global logistics and production through sophisticated predictive analytics. For instance, Boeing coordinates vast global supply chains, managing production across multiple continents with precision comparable to national economies. Similarly, Maersk orchestrates extensive shipping logistics, strategically planning shipping routes, cargo volumes, and fleet deployment months in advance, entirely through centralised planning rather than market signals. These capitalist enterprises demonstrate that the debate is not about the feasibility of planning, but rather its ultimate beneficiaries—private profit versus public welfare.
Soviet Industrialisation & Wartime Planning
The Soviet Union, inheriting a semi-feudal economy in 1917, rapidly industrialised through centralised planning. By 1940, it produced one-third of the world’s machine tools. The initial Five-Year Plans boosted industrial output by more than 250%, electrified rural regions, and virtually eliminated illiteracy. During World War II, central planners coordinated the relocation of approximately 1,500 factories eastward, swiftly restarting production and enabling the Soviet Union to manufacture 105,000 tanks and 130,000 aircraft—far surpassing Nazi Germany’s output.
However, by the 1960s, systemic issues arose, including bureaucratic inefficiencies exacerbated by limited technological capabilities. Nikita Khrushchev’s reforms of 1965 introduced profit incentives and eroded socialist principles of allocation. Subsequent leaders like Gorbachev and Yeltsin further dismantled socialist planning, ultimately undermining the socialist system itself and leading to the collapse of the USSR and the socialist bloc. This historical trajectory illustrates that planning failed not due to inherent flaws but through political decisions to reintroduce market mechanisms.
China – Hybrid Planning and Strategic Control
Since 1978, China has pursued a hybrid economic model that integrates rigorous state planning with controlled market mechanisms. Key sectors such as energy, finance, and transportation remain under strategic government direction, guided by Five-Year Plans. These plans have achieved measurable targets in poverty alleviation, infrastructure expansion, and environmental management. China has lifted over 770 million people out of extreme poverty, constructed the world’s largest high-speed rail network (approximately 45,000 kilometres), and become the leading global producer of renewable energy technologies—including over 50% of the world’s solar panels.
China’s state-directed planning also prioritises technological innovation, with significant state investments driving advancements in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and space exploration. Despite these remarkable achievements, China still grapples with regional inequalities, environmental challenges, and tensions arising from the coexistence of capitalist market dynamics within its socialist framework. Nonetheless, the Chinese model demonstrates the powerful potential of state-led strategic planning, showing that coordinated economic policy can foster rapid development and technological innovation.
Cuba – Resilience in the Face of Imperialist Pressure
Cuba provides another important case study, illustrating how planning can secure social progress despite significant external pressures. With a persistent US blockade, Cuba nonetheless achieves remarkable public health outcomes: a life expectancy of 78.8 years (comparable to the US) and the world’s highest doctor-to-population ratio (1 per 120 people). Universal healthcare, free education, and guaranteed food supplies are outcomes of careful, centralised planning.
Compared to the Dominican Republic, a similarly sized capitalist nation with higher poverty rates and weaker public health infrastructure, Cuba demonstrates that socialist planning significantly improves human welfare. Its state-planned biotechnology sector notably exported COVID-19 vaccines internationally, despite resource constraints and international isolation, reflecting planning’s power to sustain social priorities under adverse conditions. Yet, Cuba faces ongoing challenges from limited resources and persistent imperialist hostility, reinforcing the necessity for strategic international solidarity and self-reliance.
Kerala, India – Participatory Planning Within Capitalism
Kerala’s 1996 People’s Plan Campaign transferred significant budgetary control (40% of the state’s budget) directly to local councils, empowering communities to decide on infrastructure, education, and healthcare initiatives. This decentralised, socialist-inspired model has substantially improved social indicators. Kerala boasts a 96% literacy rate, significantly above India’s 74% national average, and an infant mortality rate of only 6 per 1,000 live births compared to India’s average of 18.
Kerala’s effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic further highlights how localised, democratic planning, driven by active community engagement, can yield impressive social outcomes even within a broader capitalist framework. It illustrates clearly that planning can flourish through popular participation and collective decision-making, providing valuable insights into achieving socialist outcomes within challenging political contexts.
Avoiding the Centralisation Trap
Effective planning requires a careful balance of central guidance and local autonomy. Central planning bodies must establish strategic priorities and allocate key resources, but these decisions must be dynamically informed by input from local bodies, workers’ councils, and communities. Today’s advanced digital technologies greatly enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of these feedback mechanisms.
Cuba’s Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, China’s experimental pilot zones, and Kerala’s decentralised village councils demonstrate how embedding democratic participation within planning structures can strengthen accountability, responsiveness, and effectiveness, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of overly centralised or bureaucratic systems.
Lessons for Future Socialist Planning
The experiences outlined clearly demonstrate planning’s significant potential and its vulnerabilities when democracy is compromised or market pressures intrude. Future socialist planning should prioritise democratic oversight, responsiveness to changing conditions, and strategic targeting of crucial economic sectors such as energy, transport, finance, and social welfare. Additionally, planning must embrace international cooperation to address global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and economic sanctions.
Successful planning demands recognition of common trends: genuine worker participation enhances accountability; digital and real-time data technologies improve responsiveness; and maintaining strategic public ownership is critical to safeguarding collective interests against market encroachment. By learning from historical successes and failures, future socialist planning can better navigate the complex realities of the contemporary world.
In our next article, we will explore practical methods for embedding democratic participation deeply into planning systems, ensuring these mechanisms remain resilient, accountable, and representative of working-class interests—preventing political deviations and external interference from undermining socialist objectives.
