3 ms·

> It's always more and more massive centralization Maybe it's because the decentralized system is less efficient in combat with a more centralized one, which e

by js8 11y ago

> It's always more and more massive centralization Maybe it's because the decentralized system is less efficient in combat with a more centralized one, which ends in arms race to total centralization? For example, the First International was formed as a response to the more organized bourgeoisie, which often utilized the state repression apparatus against unions. And unions themselves formed as a reaction against organized wage labour. But I think many leftists today are coming in favour of universal basic income. In the sense it is democratic, and democracy can be considered both centralized (we all agree on something) and decentralized (we all have the same amount of power). So I think the left is becoming more and more pro-democratic, which can be the solution to your conundrum.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Maybe it's because the decentralized system is less efficient in combat with a more centralized one, which ends in arms race to total centralization? The problem is, centralization is short-term thinking. With centralization you can set out to do one specific thing and it will happen (e.g. Manhattan project, Apollo project). But centralization in the long-term turns into 20th century USA vs. Soviet Union, because the central planning committee gets every specific thing they want but what they want is not the same as what is good for the country. Centralization is, essentially, monoculture. If the monoculture is perfectly adapted for existing circumstances then it will be more efficient than a more diverse system but then as soon as circumstances sufficiently change there is a catastrophic systemic failure.
- js8 11y ago
  It may be short-term thinking, but sometimes you need to survive short-term. I think there are solutions to monoculture problem, like subsidiarity.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Subsidiarity is decentralization. You can't consistently abide by the principle of subsidiarity otherwise. The United States has tried, and the result is what is called "marble cake federalism". The demarcation between federal and state lines has become so ambiguous that virtually all programs are odd chimeras of both. State programs financed by federal funds with strings attached, or federal programs that are mandated on states without giving them any special funds for it, so on and so forth.
- Umn44 11y ago
  " because the central planning committee gets every specific thing they want but what they want is not the same as what is good for the country" Say what? Look at all the centrally planned shit in the laws of the USA, the idea that the USA is decentralized is a load of bollocks. The whole point of the US government is to protect and expand monopoly power, aka centralization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/media/File:Copyright_term.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/...

by js8 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Maybe it's because the decentralized system is less efficient in combat with a more centralized one, which ends in arms race to total centralization? The problem is, centralization is short-term thinking. With centralization you can set out to do one specific thing and it will happen (e.g. Manhattan project, Apollo project). But centralization in the long-term turns into 20th century USA vs. Soviet Union, because the central planning committee gets every specific thing they want but what they want is not the same as what is good for the country. Centralization is, essentially, monoculture. If the monoculture is perfectly adapted for existing circumstances then it will be more efficient than a more diverse system but then as soon as circumstances sufficiently change there is a catastrophic systemic failure.

js8 11y ago
It may be short-term thinking, but sometimes you need to survive short-term. I think there are solutions to monoculture problem, like subsidiarity.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Subsidiarity is decentralization. You can't consistently abide by the principle of subsidiarity otherwise. The United States has tried, and the result is what is called "marble cake federalism". The demarcation between federal and state lines has become so ambiguous that virtually all programs are odd chimeras of both. State programs financed by federal funds with strings attached, or federal programs that are mandated on states without giving them any special funds for it, so on and so forth.
Umn44 11y ago
" because the central planning committee gets every specific thing they want but what they want is not the same as what is good for the country" Say what? Look at all the centrally planned shit in the laws of the USA, the idea that the USA is decentralized is a load of bollocks. The whole point of the US government is to protect and expand monopoly power, aka centralization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/media/File:Copyright_term.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/...