Economic alternatives have little space in official studies. In the eco-social crisis we have, they should be at the centre. In the curricula, subjects that do not guarantee short-term profitability have been marginalized, optional or, worse, missing from the program. This has happened in the economy, with the History of Economic Thought, the issue needed to understand the integrity of the economy. Many times, to learn about this, the path is to learn outside of academia, as happened to me, at ICEA or in Critical Economy associations.

This year I have had the opportunity to teach Economic History in the Bachelor of Business Administration and Management. It was no surprise, of the 431 pages of the handbook used as a basis, that only 9 pages were used to explain the planned socialist economic systems, and, of course, what stands out is their failure. The failure of capitalism will be for another edition. It is with this essence that planning (and by extension, socialism) is neither practical nor advisable in relation to dictatorships. To break these (ideological) limits, we brought to class the two socialist proposals (Marxist and libertarian), because we must teach economic history critically, but also to break a series of limitations that remain hidden under academic seriousness, stimulating reflection to think of models beyond capitalism.

As for planning, the model that is explained and repeated is that of the five years of the Soviet Union, but the truth is that the subject is much more complex and richer. In the collective subconscious, it persists that the market, with its errors, is better than planning; the first relates to freedom and the second to dictatorship. However, reality says just the opposite. Polanyi worked deeply on market freedom and the relationship between fascist dictatorships, highlighting the consequences of the Liberals’ economic proposals.

We have models based on non-centralized economic organization plans that don't leave decisions to an elite or bureaucracy. Among them is the participative economy. It proposes a planned socialist decentralised economy. It bases the mechanism for structuring economic decisions on participation, not on prices. This proposal was born in the early 1990s to criticize central planning and flee capitalist models.

The proposal of Ziber Communism (CibCom) has been extended in the last decade. Among the proponents we find Marxist and libertarian communists. It bases the option of socialist economic planning on current technological conditions. It analyzes the institutional, economic and computational bases that would be necessary to democratically plan a socialist economy, to build viable and efficient. It is noteworthy that this approach does not correspond to the mere staging of the means of production, nor to the proposals of market socialism.

Faced with the economic and social context that is being corrupted, the supposed solution being offered to us is to deepen the market, which is detrimental to the majority. The democratic planning of the economy needs to be moved to the centre of the debate, by knowing and disseminating theory and practices.