So here's my planning take.
I think I'm probably going to start a blog or something so I never post an embarassingly long thread like this in the future.
Generally we have a dichotomy between central and decentralized planning.
Centralized planning is popularly characterized as a necessarily hierarchical and remote process carried out by the administration. I'm not going to touch on how this is bad except to say: central planning removes not only control from the working class but consciousness of what it is doing. People become directed as tools rather than finally becoming masters of themselves and the solar system. A center that can impose like this is a state (Lassallean nonsense). The only examples of central planning we've had have been planned state capitalist economies.
Decentralized planning is lampooned as atomized groups just winging it in their own locality without regard for the larger picture. If it's planning at all this is an inaccurate picture. Supply chains associations could be an example of decentralized planning. The question of how people who take into account that larger picture -- the administration (bean counters) -- come into this is where decentralized planning falls apart for me. Without adequate information, we're simply replicating the anarchy in production of the market. We must have our beans counted because we'd be very likely to fall into some kind of chaos that'd involve famine and regressing into another exploitative system. I doubt that a working class that had been able to reach a point of vanquishing capital and establishing a planned economy would ever choose such a decentralized economy, though, so this is purely a thought experiment.
Most people say they favor a hybrid, something of both. I think that this is just appropriately planning, though. What's believed to be needed in central planning are bean counters providing an overview and suggestions. What's believed to be provided in decentralized planning is the primacy of local knowledge and the facts on the ground as well as the idea of freedom promised in communism. But what they want isn't a hybrid necessarily. More than likely, they want the planning to be informed (by our bean counters) and conducted by all involved. Rather than commands from above or wonton misproduction below, what's desired is a basis of negotiation. I think negotiation is a better way of framing what's most often meant by planning. Negotiation removes both the concern of a legumocracy and uninformed production either from bean counters or from Joe who plumbs in the afternoon. Negotiation means that people become aware and self-directing. A focus on negotiation in planning, on the process of planning, allowed people to understand what's really meant by this planning.
This was very inspired by a lecture by Michael Heinrich. It's a lecture I review a lot and it's where I believe I stole the term "negotiate" for this whole thing which itself is probable stolen from council communism generally.
https://youtu.be/hExl5k3CSjoAlso this tweet lives rent free my head (I even bought it a space heater).
https://twitter.com/tony_pancake/status/1384643333264343043?s=20Mr Pancake provides a relevant picture in Workers' Councils. This thread should just be a break down of this discussion because this actually is what I was trying to say but I didn't realize it until now.
1st (2nd) Image
https://bit.ly/3vxGpLh2nd (3rd) Image
https://bit.ly/3oZNxxhbook
http://bit.ly/PancakeCouncils
Vx. Princess "size_t queen" Grace 
Sid 🇵🇸
stux⚡️
AnarchoNinaWrites