““All this form of planning offers is to replace our present rulers with leaders or representatives of the intellectuals who endorse its policies. All it can promise is that rule by the “good guys” will be more pleasant than rule by the “bad guys.” Since it grudgingly concedes the need for market institutions but insists on interfering with them to achieve specific goals, it is a prescription for a continuation of the arbitrary use of power to which the twentieth century has become all too accustomed. Having abandoned the principle put forward by comprehensive planning, it has none left. Instead it recites social priorities that represent a wish list for the progressive-minded, but it has no well-defined standard on what means are to be deemed appropriate to achieve these ends. In short, noncomprehensive planning is not a basis for a radical movement at all. It is politics as usual. It is another plea by messianic political leaders that we should trust them to set things right. The goal of a genuine radicalism must be to transcend this whole level of politics.””
