Heiner Koch

If we defend planned economies not only on the basis of efficiency but also on the basis of freedom, we have to be able to address authoritarian tendencies of planned economies on the one hand and argue against liberals for the value of collective freedom in planned economies on the other. First, I trace the problematic theorization of the relationship between collective and individual freedom in the historical debates of liberalism and real socialism. Then I examine whether the republican concept of freedom as non-domination can avoid the pitfalls of negative and positive freedom. Subsequently I explore collective freedom through collective action theory, arguing for its inherent value and its potential existence independent of individual freedom. Genuine collective freedom relies on voluntary individual contributions and collective decisions that reflect individual will. Finally I argue that while democracy can help balance collective and individual freedoms, it cannot fully resolve the inherent tension. Alternative conflict resolution strategies may prove more effective. Ultimately, planned economies offer a unique form of collective freedom, though potentially at the expense of individual freedom. Minimizing this tension remains a key challenge. In this paper, I will first defend the idea of collective freedom through planning against liberal, republican and anarchist criticism. Subsequently, I will not develop concrete solutions for the mediation of collective freedom and individual freedom in a planned economy, but I will present approaches and concepts that can be used to deal with the problem of mediation. Democracy plays a central role here, but is not the only solution.

If we defend planned economies not only on the basis of efficiency but also on the basis of freedom, we have to be able to address authoritarian tendencies of planned economies on the one hand and argue against liberals for the value of collective freedom in planned economies on the other. First, I trace the problematic theorization of the relationship between collective and individual freedom in the historical debates of liberalism and real socialism. Then I examine whether the republican concept of freedom as non-domination can avoid the pitfalls of negative and positive freedom. Subsequently I explore collective freedom through collective action theory, arguing for its inherent value and its potential existence independent of individual freedom. Genuine collective freedom relies on voluntary individual contributions and collective decisions that reflect individual will. Finally I argue that while democracy can help balance collective and individual freedoms, it cannot fully resolve the inherent tension. Alternative conflict resolution strategies may prove more effective. Ultimately, planned economies offer a unique form of collective freedom, though potentially at the expense of individual freedom. Minimizing this tension remains a key challenge. In this paper, I will first defend the idea of collective freedom through planning against liberal, republican and anarchist criticism. Subsequently, I will not develop concrete solutions for the mediation of collective freedom and individual freedom in a planned economy, but I will present approaches and concepts that can be used to deal with the problem of mediation. Democracy plays a central role here, but is not the only solution.