Worker Co-operative movement in Venzuela....

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html

The article is a bit old but it seems like a lot is going on in Venezuela in regards to worker control of production. Apparently, its become a co-op hub.

Any thoughts?

[pranabjyoti]

I want to know in which scale the co-operatives are forming? A small scale co-operative, in my opinion can not stand in the long run. Because, it will lack the capital and expertise in research and development which is necessary for any industry in the long run. It may survive with hard struggle, but that can not be a good example for other workers to form a co-operative.

[RadioRaheem84]

I want to know in which scale the co-operatives are forming? A small scale co-operative, in my opinion can not stand in the long run. Because, it will lack the capital and expertise in research and development which is necessary for any industry in the long run. It may survive with hard struggle, but that can not be a good example for other workers to form a co-operative.

I was under the impression that many of the newly formed enterprises were expropriated or bought from private hands. I believe the agricultural ones are pretty small, but some of them are larger.

[RedSonRising]

I think that the establishment of autonomous cooperatives are vital to transition to a socialist republic instead of solely nationalized sectors with unclear management structures and production modes. They allow progress to stem from industry under worker control, regardless of how inexperienced in decision-making the workers may be or how decentralized the model may be. This is a sign that the proletarian movement has momentum and influence in Venezuela, and can coexist with Chavez OR exist on its own separately from him- both paths which leave the workers empowered and can open doors for the Latin American working class. I'm glad this was posted

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that the establishment of autonomous cooperatives are vital to transition to a socialist republic instead of solely nationalized sectors with unclear management structures and production modes. They allow progress to stem from industry under worker control, regardless of how inexperienced in decision-making the workers may be or how decentralized the model may be. This is a sign that the proletarian movement has momentum and influence in Venezuela, and can coexist with Chavez OR exist on its own separately from him- both paths which leave the workers empowered and can open doors for the Latin American working class. I'm glad this was posted

That's the exciting thing. The Chavez administration isn't just stopping at nationalizations and replacing owners with state planners like in the USSR. There is a conscious effort to support workers self management at nationalized and private enterprises. The Ministry set up to support the Co-operative Network is a great idea proposed by the progressive administration. Where once the state upheld, defended and funded private enterprise from competition, political influence has shifted to helping the co-ops sustain the competition in the marketplace.

[pranabjyoti]

I think that the establishment of autonomous cooperatives are vital to transition to a socialist republic instead of solely nationalized sectors with unclear management structures and production modes. They allow progress to stem from industry under worker control, regardless of how inexperienced in decision-making the workers may be or how decentralized the model may be. This is a sign that the proletarian movement has momentum and influence in Venezuela, and can coexist with Chavez OR exist on its own separately from him- both paths which leave the workers empowered and can open doors for the Latin American working class. I'm glad this was posted
USSR hadn't failed for imposing state control "from the above". During the the 30's, USSR achieved some amazing level of growth. At that time, thousands of workers from other European countries had flooded USSR to find job there. It's during the WWII, the great loss in both resource and human resource, it could not recover for a long time and during that phase, the revisionists conquered the power in the party.
In Mumbai (Bombay) city of India, once there was a factory named "Kamani Tubes", which was owned by workers. But, later the workers management themselves take decision to "retrench and reduce" no. of workers to save the factory. IT'S A FACT.

[Uppercut]

I like the idea of co-ops, but there is a problem that may arise: the workers of that particular place of work may lay off or replace certain workers with technology in order to boost their revenue. This is what happened in Yugoslavia. Plus, if the workers satisfy their own personal interests on a wide-enough scale, (like businessmen do under capitalism) it may damage the economy as a whole.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of co-ops, but at the same time I'm wary of what the possible negativities are. I think a balanced system of nationalization and workers' direct control is in order.

[pranabjyoti]

Moreover, the very important factor of research and development by an industry run by workers are needed to be solved. If some kind of technological or scientific progress has been achieved by any worker controlled industry, should that be shared equally with other worker controlled industry. If yes, then in my opinion a central control is necessary for that.

[cyu]

If some kind of technological or scientific progress has been achieved by any worker controlled industry, should that be shared equally with other worker controlled industry.


Agreed



If yes, then in my opinion a central control is necessary for that


If there were no central control, what obstacles do you believe there will be to this goal?

[pranabjyoti]

Agreed
If there were no central control, what obstacles do you believe there will be to this goal?
The obstacle is the fact that in a capitalist economy, you have to follow the rules of capitalist economies. A workers co-operative have to follow that too. In a capitalist economy, profit is the running force and the worker controlled factory has to obey that rule, otherwise it CAN NOT stay in the race.
Therefore, without changing, the country, the economy, establishing a worker co-operative means accepting capitalist mode of production and management by the workers. Capitalism and socialism are two different systems and their rules should be different.
In Marxism, there is a very simple rule; "either you change the society or the society will change you". I have no idea how much a workers co-operative can be helpful in changing the society. And without the presence of any revolutionary struggle, there is a very very high chance that the workers will themselves degrade to level of capitalist i.e. capitalist mentality.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html

The article is a bit old but it seems like a lot is going on in Venezuela in regards to worker control of production. Apparently, its become a co-op hub.

Any thoughts?

I should remember that link myself.

[RadioRaheem84]

The obstacle is the fact that in a capitalist economy, you have to follow the rules of capitalist economies. A workers co-operative have to follow that too. In a capitalist economy, profit is the running force and the worker controlled factory has to obey that rule, otherwise it CAN NOT stay in the race.
Therefore, without changing, the country, the economy, establishing a worker co-operative means accepting capitalist mode of production and management by the workers. Capitalism and socialism are two different systems and their rules should be different.
In Marxism, there is a very simple rule; "either you change the society or the society will change you". I have no idea how much a workers co-operative can be helpful in changing the society. And without the presence of any revolutionary struggle, there is a very very high chance that the workers will themselves degrade to level of capitalist i.e. capitalist mentality.


I think that Chavez, being a progressive socialist, is also trying to gradually bring socialism to Venezuela. Coupled with the fact that he believes he's reshaped socialism for the 21st century, his methods are highly unorthodox. But society is changing. The constitution of Venezuela is geared toward helping the people, the state is implementing ministries that help the people. That is the impact of the Boliviarian Revolution that is truly unique. Chavez's administration isn't just creating co-ops and leaving them to compete, he is fundamentally changing the political situation to favor them. He's created a whole ministry to defend and uphold them. Society is changing. I agree that it's top/down. I wish it were the other way around, but the process is still democratic for the most part.

[pranabjyoti]

I think that Chavez, being a progressive socialist, is also trying to gradually bring socialism to Venezuela. Coupled with the fact that he believes he's reshaped socialism for the 21st century, his methods are highly unorthodox. But society is changing. The constitution of Venezuela is geared toward helping the people, the state is implementing ministries that help the people. That is the impact of the Boliviarian Revolution that is truly unique. Chavez's administration isn't just creating co-ops and leaving them to compete, he is fundamentally changing the political situation to favor them. He's created a whole ministry to defend and uphold them. Society is changing. I agree that it's top/down. I wish it were the other way around, but the process is still democratic for the most part.
If what you are saying is true, then Venezuela is now on a transformation phase. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WORKERS CONTROL OVER INDUSTRY CAN BE POSSIBLE IN SUCH CONDITIONS. While the whole system of the country remain basically capitalist, but workers can take the control in their own hand and advance a particular industry isn't possible at all.

[RadioRaheem84]

I implore everyone to do their own research on Venezuela but from what I've read, it's truly a revolutionary place to be. It's a good thing that I speak Spanish otherwise I would've drowned in anti-Chavez bourgeois propaganda coming from the States.

Actually what kept me from initially supporting Chavez was the Anarchist critics of Chavez's top/down strategy. I had to really decipher a lot of their articles on the subject of worker control to see that they were largely ideologically dogmatic and missed the real progress that workers were and are gaining in Venezuela. Sure it's not perfect but for the most part it's really a movement that we can support.

[cyu]

The obstacle is the fact that in a capitalist economy, you have to follow the rules of capitalist economies.


Just because you're not centralized, that doesn't mean you're automatically capitalist. If you disagree, what are your reasons for doing so? I would say the issue of centralization/decentralization and capitalism/socialism are pretty orthogonal:

1. Centralized socialism: I probably don't have to describe that here since that appears to be what you support.
2. Decentralized capitalism: I probably don't have to describe that here since that appears to be what you think everything else is.
3. Centralized capitalism: The society is run as if it's one giant corporation, with the CEO at the top earning much more money than everyone else at the bottom of the pyramind.
4. Decentralized socialism: Workers decide for themselves how they want to run their lives. If two groups of workers disagree, then they simply split up and each does things their own way. If there are disputes between who deserves more access to some means of production, then the anarchists in the area protect those who are in greater need (ie. the poorer workers).

You may ask, "How can you guarantee that anarchists would actually protect those in need?" Well, that's the whole point of spreading anarchism. Just as people in democracies assume the people will honor the results of elections, just as people in centralized governments assume people will obey the decrees of the central government, then anarchists assume people in anarchist societies will fight to protect everyone from oppression and help the oppressed.

Excerpt from http://everything2.com/title/If+they+do+not+give+you+work+or+bread%252C+then+ta ke+bread

"Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor's bread."

The laws of man are much easier to break than the laws of survival. If your society isn't providing enough legal ways to make a decent living, then more and more people will resort to illegal ways.

This isn't to say I'm encouraging everyone to take bread or engage in armed robbery on the high seas, because while I think it's justified for those who need to do it to survive, I don't believe (for obvious reasons) that it's a good economic strategy.

I would instead encourage the taking of the actual means of production (land, raw materials, equipment, etc) - like what the MST of Brazil did or what the rest of the Latin American recovered factory movements are doing.

[pranabjyoti]

Just because you're not centralized, that doesn't mean you're automatically capitalist. If you disagree, what are your reasons for doing so? I would say the issue of centralization/decentralization and capitalism/socialism are pretty orthogonal:
But, that can mean that you are petty bourgeoisie, ultimately that will decline to a capitalist type.

1. Centralized socialism: I probably don't have to describe that here since that appears to be what you support.
2. Decentralized capitalism: I probably don't have to describe that here since that appears to be what you think everything else is.
3. Centralized capitalism: The society is run as if it's one giant corporation, with the CEO at the top earning much more money than everyone else at the bottom of the pyramid.
4. Decentralized socialism: Workers decide for themselves how they want to run their lives. If two groups of workers disagree, then they simply split up and each does things their own way. If there are disputes between who deserves more access to some means of production, then the anarchists in the area protect those who are in greater need (ie. the poorer workers).
Poorer worker means, those workers, who are working in a less productive way. Instead of improving their productivity, helping them means subsidize their living, which in my opinion will ultimately be fruitless. But, improving their productivity means research and development and that means CENTRALIZED EFFORT.

You may ask, "How can you guarantee that anarchists would actually protect those in need?" Well, that's the whole point of spreading anarchism. Just as people in democracies assume the people will honor the results of elections, just as people in centralized governments assume people will obey the decrees of the central government, then anarchists assume people in anarchist societies will fight to protect everyone from oppression and help the oppressed.

Excerpt from http://everything2.com/title/If+they+do+not+give+you+work+or+bread%252C+then+ta ke+bread

"Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor's bread."
Another petty bourgeoisie utopia. Actually, in your imaginary society, inequalities exist badly, that's why the question of help arise.

The laws of man are much easier to break than the laws of survival. If your society isn't providing enough legal ways to make a decent living, then more and more people will resort to illegal ways.
I think a revolution is a much better option.

This isn't to say I'm encouraging everyone to take bread or engage in armed robbery on the high seas, because while I think it's justified for those who need to do it to survive, I don't believe (for obvious reasons) that it's a good economic strategy.
Certainly. Increase in productivity is a much better option.

I would instead encourage the taking of the actual means of production (land, raw materials, equipment, etc) - like what the MST of Brazil did or what the rest of the Latin American recovered factory movements are doing.
That will work far more efficiently, if that is done on a much more planned way i.e. in a centralized way.

[cyu]

improving their productivity means research and development and that means CENTRALIZED EFFORT

Why does research and development require centralization? If you don't believe it can happen in a decentralized way, why not?



Another petty bourgeoisie utopia


What is your definition of "petty bourgeoisie" and why do you think this counts as one of those?



I think a revolution is a much better option.



Agreed.


That will work far more efficiently, if that is done on a much more planned way i.e. in a centralized way.

Why do you believe centralization leads to efficiency or that planning needs to be centralized? If communism spreads throughout the galaxy, how long before directives from central command makes it out to the remote star systems light-years away?

[pranabjyoti]

Why does research and development require centralization? If you don't believe it can happen in a decentralized way, why not?
In case of research and development, centralization means more accumulation of brains and resources and that means quick and better result.

What is your definition of "petty bourgeoisie" and why do you think this counts as one of those?
My defination of petty-bourgeoisie is similar to that in Marxist terminology. My first and foremost objection in the plan is instead of increasing productivity by research and development, proposal of assisting workers.

Why do you believe centralization leads to efficiency or that planning needs to be centralized? If communism spreads throughout the galaxy, how long before directives from central command makes it out to the remote star systems light-years away?
When mankind and communism will spread all over the galaxy, they will certainly have much better theoretical and technical knowledge than us and in my opinion, they will achieve the technology to go and send messages faster than the speed of light. With present level of knowledge and technology, it is just impossible.

[cyu]

centralization means more accumulation of brains and resources and that means quick and better result


I have nothing against "more accumulation of brains and resources" but why do you think that's a characteristic of centralization? By centralization, do you mean that you're just gathering up all these things in one location? Or do you mean that centralization is more a control structure, and that they can be in different locations, as long as they are all directed centrally? If people disagree, how much are they allowed to disagree with central command?



My first and foremost objection in the plan is instead of increasing productivity by research and development, proposal of assisting workers.



I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean you think we should spend more resources on R&D before trying to help free workers from capitalism? If so, are you sure you're a leftist?



they will achieve the technology to go and send messages faster than the speed of light


So you don't think it would simply be inefficent to always wait for orders from central command? Say I'm going to go have lunch. Now I'm there trying to decide what I want to eat. Should I be waiting for coordination and orders from central command before I'm allowed to decide what to have for lunch? If society were decentralized, I wouldn't have to wait at all. I could just decide for myself what I want to eat rather than wait for everyone to vote on it, or wait for some politician to tell me what to eat.

[pranabjyoti]

I have nothing against "more accumulation of brains and resources" but why do you think that's a characteristic of centralization? By centralization, do you mean that you're just gathering up all these things in one location? Or do you mean that centralization is more a control structure, and that they can be in different locations, as long as they are all directed centrally?
Centralization means a controlled structure, they may be located in different locations.

people disagree, how much are they allowed to disagree with central command?
To disagree, you have to be capable to be disagree and have to explain your causes to disagree with reason and facts. If the argument is stronger against you, you shouldn't disagree. Everbody have to obey the DICTATORSHIP OF LOGIC AND FACTS.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean you think we should spend more resources on R&D before trying to help free workers from capitalism? If so, are you sure you're a leftist?
I know at least that to establsih socialism, we need better technology and control of human kind as a whole over that. If you study history, you can find out that one kind of social can not be destroyed until and unless a level of technological development had been achieved. People have fought against feudalism for a long time, but ultimate victory come the steam engine. It's a fact throughout the human history and there is very little probablity (actually NIL) that will change in future.

So you don't think it would simply be inefficent to always wait for orders from central command? Say I'm going to go have lunch. Now I'm there trying to decide what I want to eat. Should I be waiting for coordination and orders from central command before I'm allowed to decide what to have for lunch? If society were decentralized, I wouldn't have to wait at all. I could just decide for myself what I want to eat rather than wait for everyone to vote on it, or wait for some politician to tell me what to eat.
The question of central command will only arise when you are working, not when you are on your own.

[cyu]

Centralization means a controlled structure, they may be located in different locations.

How will a centralized control structure result in better R&D than a decentralized one?


Everbody have to obey the DICTATORSHIP OF LOGIC AND FACTS... The question of central command will only arise when you are working, not when you are on your own.

What if it's a matter of preference? Say one subsection of society wants to run the assembly lines between 8am and 4pm, while another subsection wants to run it between 9am and 5pm? Or one subsection of society likes to listen to genre X music at work, while another likes to listen to genre Y at work? What kind of logic and facts are you going to use then?

If it was democratic centralism, then you may end up with everyone working 8am to 4pm while listening to genre X music. If they decided to compromise, then you may end up with everyone working 8:30am to 4:30pm, while listening to genre X some of the time, and Y the rest of the time.

If it was decentralized, then the subsection of society that likes certain hours or music goes and works in their own different and independent assembly lines, where they can get what they want without having to compromise.


I know at least that to establsih socialism, we need better technology

Why does it require a certain level of technology? What is it about lack of technology that prevents socialism? What is the minimum level of technology required before you think socialism is possible? How would you measure this? Until we reach that level of technology, would you support capitalist efforts to oppress their wage slaves?


and control of human kind as a whole over that.

Who needs to be controlled? The "inferior" lower classes? The exploitive upper classes?


People have fought against feudalism for a long time, but ultimate victory come the steam engine.

What do the steam engine and feudalism have to do with one another?

[pranabjyoti]

How will a centralized control structure result in better R&D than a decentralized one?
Simple, centralization means more accumulation of brains for a fixed target and more exchange of thoughts and ideas.

What if it's a matter of preference? Say one subsection of society wants to run the assembly lines between 8am and 4pm, while another subsection wants to run it between 9am and 5pm? Or one subsection of society likes to listen to genre X music at work, while another likes to listen to genre Y at work? What kind of logic and facts are you going to use then?
Simple again, that decision will be followed which will be the most helpful to the society.

If it was democratic centralism, then you may end up with everyone working 8am to 4pm while listening to genre X music. If they decided to compromise, then you may end up with everyone working 8:30am to 4:30pm, while listening to genre X some of the time, and Y the rest of the time.
During the working hours, you don't have right to listen to music for yourself. While working, you are not in your own, you are under some kind of control.

If it was decentralized, then the subsection of society that likes certain hours or music goes and works in their own different and independent assembly lines, where they can get what they want without having to compromise.
That will depend on the condition of that particular period, but the decision should be obeying the best solution for society.

Why does it require a certain level of technology? What is it about lack of technology that prevents socialism? What is the minimum level of technology required before you think socialism is possible? How would you measure this? Until we reach that level of technology, would you support capitalist efforts to oppress their wage slaves?
Well, until and unless the technologies that will arrive, none can say that this technology or this level of productivity will make the change. But, throughout history, it has been proved. So, at least I can say this will certainly be repeated in near and less distant future. Just think, how magically the world changed after Internet emerged. But, before that, almost none have the idea how Internet will change the world.

Who needs to be controlled? The "inferior" lower classes? The exploitive upper classes?
Even in socialism, the classless society, production should be controlled and I DON'T THINK THAT SOCIALISM WILL BE A CONTROL LESS SOCIETY. But, instead of controlling others for the benefit of ruling class, first decisions will be taken on the basis of arguments, logic and fact that everybody have to obey it. I hope you know that, even in the primitive communist society, there was some kind of control, there there was no ruling class in that kind of society.

What do the steam engine and feudalism have to do with one another?
Steam engine destroyed feudalism by increasing production. Feudalism wasn't capable of holding the level of production, that had been achieved by steam engine. A very real example of "change in quantity leads to change in quality".

[cyu]

centralization means more accumulation of brains for a fixed target

This I agree with, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. The primary problem with this attribute is that the chosen target could be the wrong target. What if the decision made was based on faulty data, high level corruption, or "ivory tower" ignorance? If that's the case, then the target chosen would be a mistake, and everyone's effort would be wasted.

In a more decentralized model, there would be groups working on the targets they themselves prefer. Not only does this give society more options to fall back on, those working on want they want to work on would have more motivation to wake up in the morning.


more exchange of thoughts and ideas

How so? The internet has quite a bit of exchange of thoughts and ideas. Do you think this is primarily due to its centralized or decentralized nature? If you wanted to improve the exchange of thoughts and ideas using the internet, how would you apply policies of centralized control to achieve this?


that decision will be followed which will be the most helpful to the society

Which is what? How much does it matter whether you work 9-5 or 8-4? If personal preference plays a bigger / more significant role than anything else, how would you settle disagreements? If your society had two groups of people debating this question, which side would you be on? What reasoning would you use to "fight for your cause"? What criteria should be used to judge the "right" decision?


you don't have right to listen to music for yourself. While working, you are not in your own, you are under some kind of control.

Why not? Are you calling for the end of capitalist oppression only to replace it with another kind of oppression?


the decision should be obeying the best solution for society.

The point anarchists would make is that decentralization / self-determination is, in fact, the best solution for society - since it is much more likely to satisfy different groups of people than centralized control.


none can say that this technology or this level of productivity will make the change. But, throughout history, it has been proved. So, at least I can say this will certainly be repeated in near and less distant future.

So are you saying the world isn't ready for socialism? That we shouldn't bother fighting for it? That we should prop up capitalist oppression until they can oppress their wage slaves into creating the technology necessary for socialism? Why are you on this website again? Are you here to discourage revolution until you supposedly think we're ready for it?


Feudalism wasn't capable of holding the level of production, that had been achieved by steam engine.

I still don't see the cause and effect you're pointing at. So what if the level of production is incredibly high? How does that end feudalism?


I DON'T THINK THAT SOCIALISM WILL BE A CONTROL LESS SOCIETY. But, instead of controlling others for the benefit of ruling class, first decisions will be taken on the basis of arguments, logic and fact that everybody have to obey it. I hope you know that, even in the primitive communist society, there was some kind of control, there there was no ruling class in that kind of society.

From decentralized democracy (http://everything2.com/title/decentralized%20democracy):

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

[pranabjyoti]

This I agree with, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. The primary problem with this attribute is that the chosen target could be the wrong target. What if the decision made was based on faulty data, high level corruption, or "ivory tower" ignorance? If that's the case, then the target chosen would be a mistake, and everyone's effort would be wasted.

In a more decentralized model, there would be groups working on the targets they themselves prefer. Not only does this give society more options to fall back on, those working on want they want to work on would have more motivation to wake up in the morning.
Well, this kind of things happen in a class based society, where decisions are taken in favor of the ruling class. But, do you think that this trend will still continue in socialism? In most cases, the "faulty" decisions were taken deliberately in favor of the ruling class and that thing has been done because the decision makers have rarely clarify their decisions to the people, who will be badly affected by the decision, a very nature of the class based society. If the decision takers have to clarify their decision, then they will act much more cautiously. Though that doesn't mean that no damage will occur anywhere, but at least I can say the level would be much much much less than that of today.

How so? The internet has quite a bit of exchange of thoughts and ideas. Do you think this is primarily due to its centralized or decentralized nature? If you wanted to improve the exchange of thoughts and ideas using the internet, how would you apply policies of centralized control to achieve this?
Sorry to say, you have forgot again that I have talked about centralization regarding labor. In Internet, all are not giving labor and if you survey, you can find that most of the people, who are on net for job purpose, are working centrally. Actually Internet makes work much more centralized.

Which is what? How much does it matter whether you work 9-5 or 8-4? If personal preference plays a bigger / more significant role than anything else, how would you settle disagreements? If your society had two groups of people debating this question, which side would you be on? What reasoning would you use to "fight for your cause"? What criteria should be used to judge the "right" decision?
The fight would be on which decision will benefit higher % of people in the society materially.

Why not? Are you calling for the end of capitalist oppression only to replace it with another kind of oppression?
End of capitalism means end of class based society, the root of all oppression. When class is uprooted, how can there be any kind of oppression?

The point anarchists would make is that decentralization / self-determination is, in fact, the best solution for society - since it is much more likely to satisfy different groups of people than centralized control.
Better say ignorant people, because when people will be enlightened, they can see that the basic differences between them are very very little in comparison to similarities, so the stress of the group mentality will diminish likely with enlightenment. This kind of group mentality is a basic characteristic of petty-bourgeoisie.

So are you saying the world isn't ready for socialism? That we shouldn't bother fighting for it? That we should prop up capitalist oppression until they can oppress their wage slaves into creating the technology necessary for socialism? Why are you on this website again? Are you here to discourage revolution until you supposedly think we're ready for it?
We are on the process of socialism and without continuing the process, the technological level can not be achieved. The capitalists have to achieve that level of technology, otherwise if humanity will stick just with the present level of technology, mankind will be destroyed. So, capitalists either have to invent and improve the technological level or the whole humanity will make them perish much ahead of their time. Improving the technological level can only buy time for them and can reach them a comparatively better end. Otherwise, they (the capitalists) have to face a much much bitter end then they thought.
The advancement of human kind is a natural-historical process, the capitalists don't have to power to alter the course of history, actually none have it. They just have the power to make a better ending of them


I still don't see the cause and effect you're pointing at. So what if the level of production is incredibly high? How does that end feudalism?
I suggest you better study some classic Marxist literature.
From decentralized democracy (http://everything2.com/title/decentralized%20democracy):


There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.
In reality, sheep's have a much larger population than wolves, so this kind of argument and example is useless when you consider the whole of the mankind.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.
Actually, all of your above mentioned examples are based on experiences of class based society, which I don't think applicable to a class less society where the decision makers have to clarify themselves to the people.

[cyu]

where decisions are taken in favor of the ruling class. But, do you think that this trend will still continue in socialism?

That only covers the corruption scenario. What about the faulty data or "ivory tower" ignorance scenario?


In Internet, all are not giving labor

It seems you draw a distinction between doing things you have to do and doing things you want to do, and it seems you are discounting all the things involving doing what you want to do. So in your ideal society, you think people still need to be forced to do things? If so, what kind of force are you willing to condone?


you can find that most of the people, who are on net for job purpose, are working centrally.

Well, most capitalist corporations are centralized, with a CEO / board of directors at the top acting as dictators telling everyone below them in the pyramid what to do. Just because capitalist corporations are centralized doesn't mean that's a good thing.


Actually Internet makes work much more centralized.

What makes you believe this?


The fight would be on which decision will benefit higher % of people in the society materially.

And anarchists would argue that you can benefit almost 100% of the people if each is allowed to choose his own preferences. If everyone must follow the majority preference rather than their own, then you benefit far fewer than 100%.


When class is uprooted, how can there be any kind of oppression?


You just claimed that people don't have the right to listen to music at work, even if they wanted to. How is that not oppression?


they can see that the basic differences between them are very very little in comparison to similarities

People will always have differences in taste, whether it's in cafeteria food, music, color of clothing, or work schedules. Are you saying you're going to try to fit everyone into the same box? Not only is that impossible, but you'll be wasting your time trying when you could be working on more important things instead.


We are on the process of socialism and without continuing the process, the technological level can not be achieved.

So is the world, at this moment, ready for socialism or not, based on the technological level? I'd say it's always been ready since the dawn of civilization, and anyone claiming it's not either doesn't really understand the strengths and possibilities of socialism, or is just a shill for the capitalists.


I suggest you better study some classic Marxist literature.

Sounds to me like you are unable to defend your claims.

[pranabjyoti]

That only covers the corruption scenario. What about the faulty data or "ivory tower" ignorance scenario?
That's not only corruption, but the root of all evil including the "ivory tower" mentality.

It seems you draw a distinction between doing things you have to do and doing things you want to do, and it seems you are discounting all the things involving doing what you want to do. So in your ideal society, you think people still need to be forced to do things? If so, what kind of force are you willing to condone?
NOT FORCE, BUT CONTROL. Even in the ancient communist societies, remains of which you can find in tribes in different parts of the world, none have been forced but everybody obeys a social order.

Well, most capitalist corporations are centralized, with a CEO / board of directors at the top acting as dictators telling everyone below them in the pyramid what to do. Just because capitalist corporations are centralized doesn't mean that's a good thing.
Well, as capitalist organizations are centralized that doesn't mean centralization is a very bad thing. It will depend on which class interest it will act.

What makes you believe this?
Pretty simple matters, just follow the working of any company that is using Internet for business or production purpose.

And anarchists would argue that you can benefit almost 100% of the people if each is allowed to choose his own preferences. If everyone must follow the majority preference rather than their own, then you benefit far fewer than 100%.
Everybody on his own during the working time and everybody can be benefited. I just can't imagine such a scenario. Can you give any real example?
[QUOTE=cyu;1667924]You just claimed that people don't have the right to listen to music at work, even if they wanted to. How is that not oppression?
If you are concentrating on listening to music, how can you concentrate on your work and if you are concentrating on your work, what's the meaning of listening to music at that time?

People will always have differences in taste, whether it's in cafeteria food, music, color of clothing, or work schedules. Are you saying you're going to try to fit everyone into the same box? Not only is that impossible, but you'll be wasting your time trying when you could be working on more important things instead.
During working hours, you have to put aside those differences, otherwise you CAN NOT WORK AS A LABOR. Well, those differences are no barrier in gathering of people as a class in a class based society.

So is the world, at this moment, ready for socialism or not, based on the technological level? I'd say it's always been ready since the dawn of civilization, and anyone claiming it's not either doesn't really understand the strengths and possibilities of socialism, or is just a shill for the capitalists.
At least we are ready for advancing towards socialism. After the working class seized power, we can speed up the development of science and technology.

Sounds to me like you are unable to defend your claims.
Those are very basic points of Marxism related debates. I don't want to repeat it. Better ask you any person on revleft regarding the matter and hope they will suggest you the same.

[cyu]

That's not only corruption, but the root of all evil including the "ivory tower" mentality.

What I mean when I say "ivory tower" is basically people who are so far removed from the actual scenario that they only think they know what's going on, when in fact they don't. This is precisely one of the problems with centralized decision making. If those making the decisions spend most of their time in the capital, then they have no idea what is going on at home. If some of those voting on decisions live in Chile, they have no idea what is going on in Mongolia. Thus the more the voters in centralized democracy are removed from the issue, the more problems result. It's the reason why there are provincial, county, city, and local governments, after all.

You also didn't address the issue with faulty data. When presented with any set of data, there will be some people in the group that think it's good, some will think it's based on faulty methodology, some will interpret it one way, others will interpret it in other ways. If you force all of them to act the same way in response to that data, then your system has the same weakness as "putting all your eggs in one basket." Even capitalists know to diversify their investments. Centralization also flies in the face of why biologists believe biodiversity is important. It was also the very fear of nuclear attack that led to the development of the internet, since the government didn't want one missile to destroy all command, control, and data stored in one center, so instead they built a system in which instead of centralizing everything, they decentralized it for security purposes.


none have been forced but everybody obeys a social order.

What about the ones that refuse to obey? If you don't force them, then they'll simply not obey, and you'll end up with anarchism anyway.


Everybody on his own during the working time and everybody can be benefited. I just can't imagine such a scenario.

Let's say there are two restaurants. Some of the people working in those restaurants want to only serve vegetarian food. Others want to offer non-vegetarian food as well. Are you going to force both restaurants to have the same menu? In the real world, those who want to work only with vegetarian food will simply choose to work in vegetarian restaurants and those who don't care would choose where they work based on other attributes of the restaurants.


how can you concentrate on your work and if you are concentrating on your work, what's the meaning of listening to music at that time?

Just because you don't have the ability to concentrate doesn't mean you have the right to dictate your failures on everyone else. In a decentralized world, if you prefer a quiet environment, then you go find a workplace where everyone else likes a quiet environment. If others like a more social or lively environment, then they choose workplaces that are more social or lively. I can't imagine how you can possibly believe that your ideas are not oppressive.


During working hours, you have to put aside those differences, otherwise you CAN NOT WORK AS A LABOR.

You wouldn't have to if society were decentralized. The world you describe is full of compromises where everyone is only partly happy because they have to put up with things they don't like. A decentralized society means there are less compromises you have to deal with, leading to happier people.


Those are very basic points of Marxism related debates. I don't want to repeat it.

Politics is all about communicating your ideas and beliefs. You're not going to get very far in politics if you refuse to do so.

[pranabjyoti]

What I mean when I say "ivory tower" is basically people who are so far removed from the actual scenario that they only think they know what's going on, when in fact they don't. This is precisely one of the problems with centralized decision making. If those making the decisions spend most of their time in the capital, then they have no idea what is going on at home. If some of those voting on decisions live in Chile, they have no idea what is going on in Mongolia. Thus the more the voters in centralized democracy are removed from the issue, the more problems result. It's the reason why there are provincial, county, city, and local governments, after all.
When the decision takers have to clarify their decision to people, then they CAN NOT be far from the people. If so, they will just be removed.

You also didn't address the issue with faulty data. When presented with any set of data, there will be some people in the group that think it's good, some will think it's based on faulty methodology, some will interpret it one way, others will interpret it in other ways. If you force all of them to act the same way in response to that data, then your system has the same weakness as "putting all your eggs in one basket." Even capitalists know to diversify their investments. Centralization also flies in the face of why biologists believe biodiversity is important. It was also the very fear of nuclear attack that led to the development of the internet, since the government didn't want one missile to destroy all command, control, and data stored in one center, so instead they built a system in which instead of centralizing everything, they decentralized it for security purposes.
Those will eventually win, who can put more logic and fact in favor of their argument.

What about the ones that refuse to obey? If you don't force them, then they'll simply not obey, and you'll end up with anarchism anyway.
They will just be socially alienated.

Let's say there are two restaurants. Some of the people working in those restaurants want to only serve vegetarian food. Others want to offer non-vegetarian food as well. Are you going to force both restaurants to have the same menu? In the real world, those who want to work only with vegetarian food will simply choose to work in vegetarian restaurants and those who don't care would choose where they work based on other attributes of the restaurants.
The quesiton of centralization will arise during worl i.e. after you have choosed your workplace.

Just because you don't have the ability to concentrate doesn't mean you have the right to dictate your failures on everyone else. In a decentralized world, if you prefer a quiet environment, then you go find a workplace where everyone else likes a quiet environment. If others like a more social or lively environment, then they choose workplaces that are more social or lively. I can't imagine how you can possibly believe that your ideas are not oppressive.
I think I have already answered your question.

You wouldn't have to if society were decentralized. The world you describe is full of compromises where everyone is only partly happy because they have to put up with things they don't like. A decentralized society means there are less compromises you have to deal with, leading to happier people.
Without division of labor, you can not increase productivity and I think that condition will still remain in the future.

Politics is all about communicating your ideas and beliefs. You're not going to get very far in politics if you refuse to do so.
My idea, not the very basics of Marxism and dialectic materialism.

[cyu]

When the decision takers have to clarify their decision to people, then they CAN NOT be far from the people. If so, they will just be removed.

It seems like you're just dodging the question. How much power should voters in Chile have on people in Mongolia? Do you believe local, city, county, and provincial governments should be done away with, to be replaced by a world government that makes all decisions, including what name to give the street in front of your home?


Those will eventually win, who can put more logic and fact in favor of their argument.

In order for one set of ideas to win over another set of ideas, there first has to be more than one set of ideas. Centralization works against this, while decentralization allows new ideas to be developed.


They will just be socially alienated.

So? What if 51% wants to do one thing and 49% wants to do something else? If one side "socially alienates" the other, does it really matter to either? Who is really alienating whom at that point? When the two groups are both very large, who can really tell the "alienator" from the "alienatee"?


The quesiton of centralization will arise during worl i.e. after you have choosed your workplace.

Are you admitting that decentralization is better when choosing your workplace?


Without division of labor, you can not increase productivity

Why do you believe I'm against division of labor?


My idea, not the very basics of Marxism and dialectic materialism.

Can you tell the difference between a correct and incorrect interpretation of someone's ideas? Are you sure you have a firm grasp of Marx? Do you believe Marx spoke The Word of God, was infallible, and it is now your job to spread His Gospel, unchanged, to the rest of the pagans?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Things would go a long way if there were some enabling of society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common strategic plan.

"If united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, 'possible' communism?" (Marx, The Civil War in France)

[pranabjyoti]

It seems like you're just dodging the question. How much power should voters in Chile have on people in Mongolia? Do you believe local, city, county, and provincial governments should be done away with, to be replaced by a world government that makes all decisions, including what name to give the street in front of your home?
Kindly first be clear that whether you are talking about the present or the future. If you want to
In order for one set of ideas to win over another set of ideas, there first has to be more than one set of ideas. Centralization works against this, while decentralization allows new ideas to be developed. If you want to make a picture of the future on the basis of the present, you will just mix up and puzzle everybody including yourself.

So? What if 51% wants to do one thing and 49% wants to do something else? If one side "socially alienates" the other, does it really matter to either? Who is really alienating whom at that point? When the two groups are both very large, who can really tell the "alienator" from the "alienatee"?
Those who don't have support of logic and fact behind them, will be alienated.

Are you admitting that decentralization is better when choosing your workplace?
I only want to talk about centralization during work.

Why do you believe I'm against division of labor?
The way you are advocating decentralization, will end up in that. And without the "compromise", division of labor wouldn't be possible.

Can you tell the difference between a correct and incorrect interpretation of someone's ideas? Are you sure you have a firm grasp of Marx? Do you believe Marx spoke The Word of God, was infallible, and it is now your job to spread His Gospel, unchanged, to the rest of the pagans?
Based on his/her own writings. At least, in case of Marxism, its interpretations are well debated and now we have reached some conclusion. NONE IS GOD. but in science, you have to follow proven old scientific theories like words of God. In science, at least I can say the advancement comes with broadening and refining of old ideas, not by their rejection as "THOSE ARE NOT WORDS OF GOD". Kindly please stay away from words like "are those words of God", these are very useless and irritating during when you are discussing something scientific.

[cyu]

Kindly first be clear that whether you are talking about the present or the future

I would prefer to hear about your proposed society, but I'd be interested in what you have to say about both the present as well.


If you want to make a picture of the future on the basis of the present, you will just mix up and puzzle everybody including yourself.


So how would centralization promote diverse ideas, in your view?


Those who don't have support of logic and fact behind them, will be alienated

Did you even understand my statement? The point is that there could be two groups so large that "alienation" between them wouldn't even be seen as punishment - they'd just go their independent ways, regardless of who thinks they are logical (or maybe both sides think they are logical when in fact neither side is). Anyway, the self-determination of people with different opinions is one of the characteristics of anarchism.


I only want to talk about centralization during work.

So choosing a workplace doesn't count? What about choosing what projects you want to work on after you've joined?


The way you are advocating decentralization, will end up in that. And without the "compromise", division of labor wouldn't be possible.

Seems like you are just making a lot of empty assertions without explaining why you believe what you believe, so I have do keep asking you to explain your thought process. So here we go again: Would you like to explain why you believe this?


Kindly please stay away from words like "are those words of God", these are very useless and irritating during when you are discussing something scientific.

That is called sarcasm. "The Word of God" is also another way of saying something people believe to be infallible. Do you believe Marx was infallible? Are you seriously telling me there's nothing you disagree with Marx about? If so, then you sound just like any religious follower that claims their own holy texts are infallible. The fact is, all human beings make mistakes. If you don't realize that and blindly follow a "leader" or "thinker" - any leader or thinker - then you will never make progress.

Memetic evolution is about adopting the ideas you like, throwing out the ones you don't, looking for replacements for the ones you threw out, communicating those ideas to others, and remaining open to revising your set of memes based on your discussion with others. If you consider any living or dead politician to be infallible, then your ideas will never evolve, never improve.

[pranabjyoti]

I would prefer to hear about your proposed society, but I'd be interested in what you have to say about both the present as well.
What I can say about future is that it is a classless society. Marx himself was strictly against this kind of futuristic gospels and instead he purposefully devoted himself to the analysis of the present system. In this matter, I myself want to follow our great German philosopher clearly (you can say blindly). Making comments about future society based on our knowledge of today is simply foolish and I myself don't want to make a fool myself.

So how would centralization promote diverse ideas, in your view?
With centralization, we can have more access to diverse ideas because that will be presented centrally and we can compare and choose among better and best. That idea will survive, which will be proved to be best by scientific standard.

Did you even understand my statement? The point is that there could be two groups so large that "alienation" between them wouldn't even be seen as punishment - they'd just go their independent ways, regardless of who thinks they are logical (or maybe both sides think they are logical when in fact neither side is). Anyway, the self-determination of people with different opinions is one of the characteristics of anarchism.
So far on my experience, this kind of behavior, that you have said is a petty-bourgeoisie characteristic, PETTY-BOURGEOISIE INDIVIDUALISM. That goes very well with Anarchy (petty-bourgeoisie ideology), but not with the working class. Simply, those differences will diminish or vanish, when they began to work on those ideas. That idea, which will be more practical and close to reality will survive. But, that "difference" will remain as long as both groups will just ARGUE on that matter.

So choosing a workplace doesn't count? What about choosing what projects you want to work on after you've joined?
In my opinion, you can not be considered until and unless you have joined any project. So, choosing project after joining is just meaningless.

Seems like you are just making a lot of empty assertions without explaining why you believe what you believe, so I have do keep asking you to explain your thought process. So here we go again: Would you like to explain why you believe this?
Kindly read "Das Capital" and I hope you will find the answers.

That is called sarcasm. "The Word of God" is also another way of saying something people believe to be infallible. Do you believe Marx was infallible? Are you seriously telling me there's nothing you disagree with Marx about? If so, then you sound just like any religious follower that claims their own holy texts are infallible. The fact is, all human beings make mistakes. If you don't realize that and blindly follow a "leader" or "thinker" - any leader or thinker - then you will never make progress.
Do you have any idea of science. Marxism is science and you have to take it as science i.e. like "words of God". If you are an civil engineer, you have to have "faith" on the laws of gravity by Newton and other laws about general properties of matter like "words of God". Huge lot of engineers and scientists, who themselves don't believe in God or any kind of supernatural power, believes on those laws and equations like "words of God". At least my little knowledge of science taught me that. It taught me "believe on the laws and equations of science (discovered or calculated by some scientist, who are not God) like words of God UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT REASON AND FACT TO MAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT". Do you have sufficient reason and fact to deny laws of dialectic materialism? If yes, can you explain that to me and other?

Memetic evolution is about adopting the ideas you like, throwing out the ones you don't, looking for replacements for the ones you threw out, communicating those ideas to others, and remaining open to revising your set of memes based on your discussion with others. If you consider any living or dead politician to be infallible, then your ideas will never evolve, never improve.
If there is sufficient reason and fact backup behind any idea, then every reasonable person will adopt it. At least I myself can explain with reasons and facts why do I "dislike" something.

[cyu]

you can not be considered until and unless you have joined any project. So, choosing project after joining is just meaningless

Even after joining a project, each person still has to decide lots of things over the course of a day. How many people are going to be involved in voting on how much sauce to put on a pizza? In how to design each part of a circuit board? In how many apples to put in this basket versus the other basket? You do realize that division of labor is the opposite of centralized control, right? Each person controls his own area when people specialize.


If there is sufficient reason and fact backup behind any idea, then every reasonable person will adopt it. At least I myself can explain with reasons and facts why do I "dislike" something.

So what if people disagree like we are disagreeing right now? Do they argue until the end of time? Obviously, since the two of us disagree, you probably think you are the reasonable person and I am the unreasonable one. What if I think the same thing? It sounds to me like you are just setting yourself up for endless arguments unless you set up a system in which those who disagree are allowed to go their own way, and do things their own way.

You don't seriously believe that through some amazing burst of logic that you can convert me into agreeing with you, do you? If you do believe it, are you still searching for that logic? If you don't really believe it, then am I part of that group that is destined for alienation? What if the group that is destined for alienation is actually 90% of the population?

[pranabjyoti]

Even after joining a project, each person still has to decide lots of things over the course of a day. How many people are going to be involved in voting on how much sauce to put on a pizza? In how to design each part of a circuit board? In how many apples to put in this basket versus the other basket? You do realize that division of labor is the opposite of centralized control, right? Each person controls his own area when people specialize.
In my opinion, in future, those who will be done by machines in a mechanized way. No human labor will be necessary. And in case of putting sauce on a pizza, the consumer will decide how much sauce in the pizza would he want. With mechanization and advancement in technology, this kind of specialization would become unnecessary.

So what if people disagree like we are disagreeing right now? Do they argue until the end of time? Obviously, since the two of us disagree, you probably think you are the reasonable person and I am the unreasonable one. What if I think the same thing? It sounds to me like you are just setting yourself up for endless arguments unless you set up a system in which those who disagree are allowed to go their own way, and do things their own way.
We are disagreeing on distant future and debate can be ended with some kind of time machine by going into the future. And regarding centralization and decentralization, join any industry and you will find the more any industry (whether production or service) would become automated, more centralized it will become.

You don't seriously believe that through some amazing burst of logic that you can convert me into agreeing with you, do you? If you do believe it, are you still searching for that logic? If you don't really believe it, then am I part of that group that is destined for alienation? What if the group that is destined for alienation is actually 90% of the population?
90% of population? How can you be so sure. The problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that they want to overcome their inherent inability with just numbers. But in science, numbers are meaningless. If 99.999999999....% of people in world think that "The Sun revolves around the Earth", it wouldn't become a fact.

[cyu]

join any industry and you will find the more any industry (whether production or service) would become automated, more centralized it will become.


If there was a machine that could produce any nutrient you wanted, you could either build one giant machine and everyone gets the stuff they want out of that machine (in which case you get centralization) or everyone could control their own small machines and decide for themselves what they want produced (in which case it would be decentralization).



90% of population? How can you be so sure... If 99.999999999....% of people in world think that "The Sun revolves around the Earth", it wouldn't become a fact.


90% is just a hypothetical number. Unlike your example of the sun, my statement was regarding political opinion. If 90% of the population believes in one political opinion, that doesn't necessarily make the opinion right, however, it also doesn't change the fact that 90% believe it. Political discussion and propaganda changes what percentage of the people believe what. So yes, it's definitely possible for 90% of the people to support decentralization, just as it's possible for 90% to support centralization.

So back to my original question, if it happens that 90% support decentralization (or 70% or 50%), what are you going to do about it? Is your 10% (or 30% or 50%) going to "alienate" the rest of the population?

[pranabjyoti]

If there was a machine that could produce any nutrient you wanted, you could either build one giant machine and everyone gets the stuff they want out of that machine (in which case you get centralization) or everyone could control their own small machines and decide for themselves what they want produced (in which case it would be decentralization).
That simply means chaos. Without any very big machines, we can put smaller machines in tandem for better production and THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON IN BIG INDUSTRIES.

90% is just a hypothetical number. Unlike your example of the sun, my statement was regarding political opinion. If 90% of the population believes in one political opinion, that doesn't necessarily make the opinion right, however, it also doesn't change the fact that 90% believe it. Political discussion and propaganda changes what percentage of the people believe what. So yes, it's definitely possible for 90% of the people to support decentralization, just as it's possible for 90% to support centralization.
In science, how many % believes in what means just NOTHING. What matters is whether it has been solidly supported by logic and fact or not.

So back to my original question, if it happens that 90% support decentralization (or 70% or 50%), what are you going to do about it? Is your 10% (or 30% or 50%) going to "alienate" the rest of the population?
If the population continue to believe in their unscientific idea, they will automatically just ELIMINATED BY NATURE.

[cyu]

That simply means chaos. Without any very big machines, we can put smaller machines in tandem for better production and THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON IN BIG INDUSTRIES.


That simply means self-determination. You don't need some central office to tell you what you want. You simply decide for yourself what you want. Is economics not about providing for what you want?



In science, how many % believes in what means just NOTHING. What matters is whether it has been solidly supported by logic and fact or not.


You seem to be fixated on some hand-wavy defintion of "logic" - but the fact is, it is possible for all sides to believe only they themselves are logical, and the other sides are not. When it comes to politics, that's just the way it is. Just take our debate over centralization / decentralization. You claim you are logical. Do you believe that I don't think my arguments are logical?



If the population continue to believe in their unscientific idea, they will automatically just ELIMINATED BY NATURE.


Not necessarily. Plenty of societies with different religions have survived thousands of years. Obviously those different religions can't all be right. How would you explain this?

[pranabjyoti]

That simply means self-determination. You don't need some central office to tell you what you want. You simply decide for yourself what you want. Is economics not about providing for what you want?
It's not self determination. Kindly visit factories of a any big company and you will find that the machines and the machine arrangement is almost same, A VERY CLEAR PROOF OF CENTRALIZATION.

You seem to be fixated on some hand-wavy defintion of "logic" - but the fact is, it is possible for all sides to believe only they themselves are logical, and the other sides are not. When it comes to politics, that's just the way it is. Just take our debate over centralization / decentralization. You claim you are logical. Do you believe that I don't think my arguments are logical?
To understand what is logical, I think you need some understanding of logic, specially scientific logic. Have you ever joined with any scientific work or try to do something new by yourself? I hope not.

Not necessarily. Plenty of societies with different religions have survived thousands of years. Obviously those different religions can't all be right. How would you explain this?
Those religious beliefs have roots in the environment of the area, where those religious community leaves. Basically, that was old times, when civilization was backward. Now, globalization is concentrating us towards a common goal.
Those religions are in fact a mirror of underdevelopment of science and technology and human dependence on nature. Which is gradually reducing today.

[cyu]

Kindly visit factories of a any big company and you will find that the machines and the machine arrangement is almost same, A VERY CLEAR PROOF OF CENTRALIZATION.



What does that prove anyway? Of course corporate dictatorships are centralized. After all, the CEO and board of directors sit at the top of the pyramid, and tells everyone else beneath them what to do. Centralization doesn't always result in tyranny and oppression, but tyranny and oppression are certainly hard to accomplish without centralization.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your previous statement.



To understand what is logical, I think you need some understanding of logic, specially scientific logic. Have you ever joined with any scientific work or try to do something new by yourself? I hope not.



If you believe everyone who disagrees with you is illogical, it only proves that it is you who is irrational.


Those religious beliefs have roots in the environment of the area, where those religious community leaves. Basically, that was old times, when civilization was backward. Now, globalization is concentrating us towards a common goal.
Those religions are in fact a mirror of underdevelopment of science and technology and human dependence on nature. Which is gradually reducing today.

And yet you still haven't explained why they've survived thousands of years without being "automatically just ELIMINATED BY NATURE" as you put it.

[pranabjyoti]

What does that prove anyway? Of course corporate dictatorships are centralized. After all, the CEO and board of directors sit at the top of the pyramid, and tells everyone else beneath them what to do. Centralization doesn't always result in tyranny and oppression, but tyranny and oppression are certainly hard to accomplish without centralization.
Man, this is not a question of class dictatorship because no worker ever oppose this. At least, the corporates know well what is best for the production, otherwise they just can't survive. From your post, it seems that they are beyond any socio-political-economic laws, but they aren't. The corporate boards do that and will continue to do that because they know that this the best way for their productivity. And so far, I haven't heard any worker organization, or even a single worker has opposed the management is this regard.

If you believe everyone who disagrees with you is illogical, it only proves that it is you who is irrational.
There is subject named "logic" that is studied in colleges. I am talking about that logic.

And yet you still haven't explained why they've survived thousands of years without being "automatically just ELIMINATED BY NATURE" as you put it.
Pretty simple, the underdevelopment of science and technology and moreover, keeping most of humanity out of the reach of the fruits of science and technology keeps those religious beliefs alive. When more and more fruits of science and technology will began to reach to people, that will began to diminish and will disappear at the end. I hope other people in this forum will also agree with me in this regard.

[RadioRaheem84]

Too bad US imperialism is forcing Chavez into a more statist role.


What statist role?

[cyu]

And so far, I haven't heard any worker organization, or even a single worker has opposed the management is this regard.

So what is it that you're saying? That in post-capitalist society, companies still have CEOs and boards of directors ordering their underlings around, and if they disobey, they are fired?


the underdevelopment of science and technology and moreover, keeping most of humanity out of the reach of the fruits of science and technology keeps those religious beliefs alive

You're still avoiding the question. You had said "automatically just ELIMINATED BY NATURE" - why didn't these societies just go extinct? If, assuming you're talking in Darwinian terms, they are less able to compete due to their irrationality, why didn't these societies get replaced by atheist societies thousands of years ago?

Well, I'm not going to leave you hanging any longer. Excerpts from http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/social+Darwinism

How would Social Darwinism explain the existance of religion? Most religions tell their people to help one another, instead of fighting. Even in non-religious societies, their political systems outlaws things like murder. This should be wrong to the logic of a Social Darwinist - murder should be encouraged because it will separate the weak from the strong.

The answer to this puzzle is that religious and political systems have been in a process of memetic evolution. The belief systems that best encourage their people to cooperate (instead of compete) are the ones that survive and are passed down to future generations.

The logic of competition would imply two groups of people fight wars with one another over resources and territory. The result of war is that both groups suffer many deaths, economic production is redirected into destruction rather than creation. The beliefs that led to this war have made both the groups less fit to survive.

If instead the two groups had been encouraged by their beliefs to cooperate, they would be helping each other survive. Some growing crops, some developing medicine. In the end, both sides benefit and thus, their beliefs have more survival value.

Most societies have religious and moral systems that try to get their people to help one another survive, rather than leave "the weak" to die, as Social Darwinists may suggest. Why cooperation? The evidence seems to indicate that cooperation is a better survival strategy than competition - which is why philosophies based on human competition (such as Hitler's concept of a master race) tend to go extinct.

When it comes to property, you could have a lot of individuals fighting over land and resources. However, fighting turns out to be an inefficient use of time and resources. It also often ends up injuring both sides, thus reducing the overall "might" of the population. In order to increase the "might" of the overall population, humans evolved systems of cooperation. Thus you are no longer looking at the might of single individuals, but the might of the civilization.

When the civilization loses its cooperative edge is when its individuals start fighting each other - whether it's over land or other things. It is a sign that the memes currently present in the civilization are no longer as mighty as they used to be, or could be in the future.

It would be more efficient for both sides to work together rather than attack each other - which is probably one of the reasons most religions and moral codes have evolved prohibitions against murder.

[pranabjyoti]

So what is it that you're saying? That in post-capitalist society, companies still have CEOs and boards of directors ordering their underlings around, and if they disobey, they are fired?
At least there should be some kind of authority which will retain the power to take decision. But the difference with a capitalist society in this respect will be that they will be answerable to the society. Without that, there would be nothing but total chaos.

You're still avoiding the question. You had said "automatically just ELIMINATED BY NATURE" - why didn't these societies just go extinct? If, assuming you're talking in Darwinian terms, they are less able to compete due to their irrationality, why didn't these societies get replaced by atheist societies thousands of years ago?

Well, I'm not going to leave you hanging any longer. Excerpts from http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/social+Darwinism

How would Social Darwinism explain the existance of religion? Most religions tell their people to help one another, instead of fighting. Even in non-religious societies, their political systems outlaws things like murder. This should be wrong to the logic of a Social Darwinist - murder should be encouraged because it will separate the weak from the strong.

The answer to this puzzle is that religious and political systems have been in a process of memetic evolution. The belief systems that best encourage their people to cooperate (instead of compete) are the ones that survive and are passed down to future generations.

The logic of competition would imply two groups of people fight wars with one another over resources and territory. The result of war is that both groups suffer many deaths, economic production is redirected into destruction rather than creation. The beliefs that led to this war have made both the groups less fit to survive.

If instead the two groups had been encouraged by their beliefs to cooperate, they would be helping each other survive. Some growing crops, some developing medicine. In the end, both sides benefit and thus, their beliefs have more survival value.

Most societies have religious and moral systems that try to get their people to help one another survive, rather than leave "the weak" to die, as Social Darwinists may suggest. Why cooperation? The evidence seems to indicate that cooperation is a better survival strategy than competition - which is why philosophies based on human competition (such as Hitler's concept of a master race) tend to go extinct.

When it comes to property, you could have a lot of individuals fighting over land and resources. However, fighting turns out to be an inefficient use of time and resources. It also often ends up injuring both sides, thus reducing the overall "might" of the population. In order to increase the "might" of the overall population, humans evolved systems of cooperation. Thus you are no longer looking at the might of single individuals, but the might of the civilization.

When the civilization loses its cooperative edge is when its individuals start fighting each other - whether it's over land or other things. It is a sign that the memes currently present in the civilization are no longer as mighty as they used to be, or could be in the future.

It would be more efficient for both sides to work together rather than attack each other - which is probably one of the reasons most religions and moral codes have evolved prohibitions against murder.
NOT IN A DARWINIAN MANNER, BUT BECAUSE WOULDN'T BE USEFUL TO ANY HUMAN BEING.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Evidence of a workers win within Venezuela, helped achieved by the Venezuelan State:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5081

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5140

[RadioRaheem84]

What's happening in Venezuela is tremendous and should be supported by all socialists. BUT Chavez isn't so much as revolutionizing the country as he is creating a separate economy in direct competition with the old one. This could pose a huge problem as it will cause these new enterprises to heavily rely on the State. I don't know how much more Chavez can sustain keeping these enterprises propped up with petro dollars before its starts eating into the capitalist classes resources.
Regardless of Chavez's presence in the country, the bourgeoisie are still very much in control and hold vast sway in a lot of areas including the ones Chavez has effectively nationalized.

Sooner or later there is going to be another direct confrontation with the capitalist class.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What's happening in Venezuela is tremendous and should be supported by all socialists. BUT Chavez isn't so much as revolutionizing the country as he is creating a separate economy in direct competition with the old one. This could pose a huge problem as it will cause these new enterprises to heavily rely on the State. I don't know how much more Chavez can sustain keeping these enterprises propped up with petro dollars before its starts eating into the capitalist classes resources.
Regardless of Chavez's presence in the country, the bourgeoisie are still very much in control and hold vast sway in a lot of areas including the ones Chavez has effectively nationalized.

Sooner or later there is going to be another direct confrontation with the capitalist class.

Yes, but he's brought more power to the working class than any president in Latin America. I'm positive that one here on RevLeft expects to see Chavez as the one that'll bring communism to Venezuela, but he's moving it forward, & that I'll remain supporting, & would love to fight side-by-side with Chavez & his people.

[RadioRaheem84]

Agreed. There is no other place in the world right now where socialism is truly gaining momentum.

[Ligeia]

What's happening in Venezuela is tremendous and should be supported by all socialists. BUT Chavez isn't so much as revolutionizing the country as he is creating a separate economy in direct competition with the old one. This could pose a huge problem as it will cause these new enterprises to heavily rely on the State. I don't know how much more Chavez can sustain keeping these enterprises propped up with petro dollars before its starts eating into the capitalist classes resources.
Regardless of Chavez's presence in the country, the bourgeoisie are still very much in control and hold vast sway in a lot of areas including the ones Chavez has effectively nationalized.

Sooner or later there is going to be another direct confrontation with the capitalist class.
This comment reminds me of this article here:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5118
It talks about Venezuela being mentioned with a special section in the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community
(here: http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf ).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Bolivia is gaining some speed as well, & my support goes out to Morales.

[RadioRaheem84]

This comment reminds me of this article here:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5118
It talks about Venezuela being mentioned with a special section in the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community
(here: http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf ).

Reading official government reports make me cringe. Their thinking is expressed in these writings. They deceive themselves with their own BS. Analysts predict Venezuela to be one of the only stable economies right now in this shaky world. A lot of investment left the country but a lot has also come in. Most of the loss was due to the 2003 business strike but as more capitalists learn that Chavez is not a Stalin the more they will invest.

When they say statist, just what do they mean? The US is a statist economy too with large state and federal arms extending corporate welfare to large corporations. The thinking of government officials confuses me and make me fearful of the people running the country. They speak as though they're in charge of the world and certain regimes must be stopped at once. There is a whole mode of thinking and a mountain of presumed ideas one must hold in order to actually take these documents seriously and see them as legitimate sources of information. When one leaves this sphere of thinking one can see why so many oppose US policy.

Frightening.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://vensolidarity.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fact-sheet-interpol-report.pdf

This is a response to the BS put out in the US government report on Venezuela and the FARC.

[cyu]

NOT IN A DARWINIAN MANNER, BUT BECAUSE WOULDN'T BE USEFUL TO ANY HUMAN BEING.

Not sure what you're referring to here, but whatever.


the difference with a capitalist society in this respect will be that they will be answerable to the society.

If you're referring to democracy here, that's fine by me. Of course, anarchists have a different take on democracy. From decentralized democracy (http://everything2.com/title/decentralized%20democracy):

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

[RedScare]

I support Chavez, and I think that he's doing a pretty good job of moving towards socialism, considering the international circumstances, such as the lack of a large, wealthy, industrialized socialist power to assist him, with only Cuba, Bolivia and the rest of ALBA for tangible economic help, and with pressure from Colombia and the United States and his own national bourgeoisie to reverse course.

I don't think he'll force confrontation with the capitalists in his country until there's a bigger international socialist movement over all, which is smart. There needs a to be a new socialist camp in order for Chavez and the Venezuelan people to press ahead.

[Saorsa]

Agreed. There is no other place in the world right now where socialism is truly gaining momentum.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/news-nepal-t114558/index30.html

[Ligeia]

There is a whole mode of thinking and a mountain of presumed ideas one must hold in order to actually take these documents seriously and see them as legitimate sources of information. When one leaves this sphere of thinking one can see why so many oppose US policy.

Frightening.
It is frightening.
http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=219743&lee=17
In April there'll be a new Action-genre movie out, about the overthrow of a Latin American dictator,....all the soldiers wear red berets.:mellow:
(Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXfOVNghWhk )

[pranabjyoti]

Not sure what you're referring to here, but whatever.
What I want to say is that, the religions survived because they have some useful and scientific part of them in their ideology. But, when those parts, which were useful and valid at that time, become useless and obsolete due to progress of science and technology, they will just began to die and till today, the process is continuing.

If you're referring to democracy here, that's fine by me. Of course, anarchists have a different take on democracy. From decentralized democracy (http://everything2.com/title/decentralized%20democracy):

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.
Centralization doesn't mean autocracy and democracy doesn't mean just anarchy.

[cyu]

What I want to say is that, the religions survived because they have some useful and scientific part of them in their ideology. But, when those parts, which were useful and valid at that time, become useless and obsolete due to progress of science and technology, they will just began to die and till today, the process is continuing.



Sure. Like DNA sequences, religions also contain redundancy and useless cruft. Just as natural selection chooses genes that promote the survival and reproduction of an organism and its genes, natural selection also chooses beliefs that promote the survival and reproduction of a society and its beliefs.

Because of our lack of knowledge, we can't always tell which genes do what and if "fixing" one gene may result in worse problems down the road. The same might be said of memes in memeplexes. This isn't to say we shouldn't ever change any genes or memes, but we should be careful in analyzing exactly why they exist. To a "traditional" Darwinian, for example, the meme against murder might seem like a useless meme, because it makes the carrier less able to compete. However, later "cooperative" Darwinians would end up correcting them, saying that if the meme against murder were "fixed" then it would actually end up destroy the ability of a society to survive.


Centralization doesn't mean autocracy and democracy doesn't mean just anarchy.

Agreed. However, whenever I argue for democracy, someone always brings up the problem of "tyranny of the majority". The only counter-argument that I find satisfactory is decentralized democracy. Do you have a better counter-argument against "tyranny of the majority"?

[pranabjyoti]

Sure. Like DNA sequences, religions also contain redundancy and useless cruft. Just as natural selection chooses genes that promote the survival and reproduction of an organism and its genes, natural selection also chooses beliefs that promote the survival and reproduction of a society and its beliefs.

Because of our lack of knowledge, we can't always tell which genes do what and if "fixing" one gene may result in worse problems down the road. The same might be said of memes in memeplexes. This isn't to say we shouldn't ever change any genes or memes, but we should be careful in analyzing exactly why they exist. To a "traditional" Darwinian, for example, the meme against murder might seem like a useless meme, because it makes the carrier less able to compete. However, later "cooperative" Darwinians would end up correcting them, saying that if the meme against murder were "fixed" then it would actually end up destroy the ability of a society to survive.
Are we discussing social evolution or Darwinism here?

Agreed. However, whenever I argue for democracy, someone always brings up the problem of "tyranny of the majority". The only counter-argument that I find satisfactory is decentralized democracy. Do you have a better counter-argument against "tyranny of the majority"?
In my opinion, only the "tyranny of logic and science" will remain.

[cyu]

Are we discussing social evolution or Darwinism here?



Darwinism is a subset of evolution, just like Marxism is a subset of communism.


only the "tyranny of logic and science" will remain.

How can you tell when your logic is better than someone else's? What if it turns out that your logic is wrong? Perhaps your current logic about your imagined social system is wrong. Do you believe that is a possibility, or do you deny it?

[pranabjyoti]

Darwinism is a subset of evolution, just like Marxism is a subset of communism.
We are discussing about the existence of religion today and this kind of remarks just divert the discussion.

How can you tell when your logic is better than someone else's? What if it turns out that your logic is wrong? Perhaps your current logic about your imagined social system is wrong. Do you believe that is a possibility, or do you deny it?
Only reality can tell which logic is better and I think logic should be based on scientific experiments and data.

[cyu]

We are discussing about the existence of religion today and this kind of remarks just divert the discussion.
Assuming we are discussing religion then, do you disagree with my analysis? If so, in what ways?


Only reality can tell which logic is better and I think logic should be based on scientific experiments and data.

So show me the scientific experiments and data that makes you believe centralization is better than decentralization.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So show me the scientific experiments and data that makes you believe centralization is better than decentralization.

Not exactly 'scientific', but it's a nice opinionated argument on the battle of 'Centralization vs. Decentralization': http://www.soencouragement.org/centralizationvsdecentralization.htm

[pranabjyoti]

Assuming we are discussing religion then, do you disagree with my analysis? If so, in what ways?
I am just unable to relate biological evolution with social evolution, specially revolution of the religions.

So show me the scientific experiments and data that makes you believe centralization is better than decentralization.
Just go to any modern industry and look at their management, that is a very good example.

[cyu]

I am just unable to relate biological evolution with social evolution, specially revolution of the religions.



Do you believe biological evolution can affect the ability of organisms to survive? Do you believe social evolution can affect the ability of organisms to survive?



Just go to any modern industry and look at their management, that is a very good example.


That is not an experiment. Just because a slave society exists for a long time does not mean it is better than a non-slave society. With an argument like yours, you might as well be claiming that capitalism is better than socialism, because you "just go to any modern society and look at their economy" and you'll find capitalists.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Evolution is the effects of survival. Sexual intercourse is a main element of bringing about evolutionary change, for we keep trying to build our off springs a biological element within them to gain what their parents or ancestors didn't have, & harmed them during the state of survival. I remember going through this article one time showing evolutionary changes within certain animals, & it showed this caterpillar that had evolved itself to where it's backside would have the shape, color, & look of a snake's face. This was used to ward off any large enemies that were known to harm their past relatives & ancestors. Evolution is a magnificent force within any biological life-form.

http://i49.tinypic.com/e5og07.jpg

[pranabjyoti]

Do you believe biological evolution can affect the ability of organisms to survive? Do you believe social evolution can affect the ability of organisms to survive?
Social evolution is not an exact copy of biological evolution and two have different rules.

That is not an experiment. Just because a slave society exists for a long time does not mean it is better than a non-slave society. With an argument like yours, you might as well be claiming that capitalism is better than socialism, because you "just go to any modern society and look at their economy" and you'll find capitalists.
Slave society existed for a long time until and unless it was unable to coup up with the technological progress, as per Marxian theory of social change. Socialism is the reflection of working class interest and this interest in my opinion, haven't in clash with centralization of modern industry, because not even a single worker have opposed this centralization. In contrary, this centralization give us the historical opportunity to take control of the production. I don't know whether you are connected to any kind of production or service or not. If yes, I think your own experience can teach you the difference.

[cyu]

Social evolution is not an exact copy of biological evolution and two have different rules.


And your point is? Everything is different from other things in some way or another. You don't believe analogies can be drawn between genes and memes? Between DNA sequences and ideologies?



not even a single worker have opposed this centralization


You do realize this is a wild assertion, don't you? The very fact that we're even having this discussion means "some workers" object to centralization - or perhaps you don't consider me a "worker"? Why do you even think anarcho-syndicalism exists? Perhaps you believe it's a theory no real worker believes and is only something conjured up by academics as a hypothetical ideology?

[pranabjyoti]

And your point is? Everything is different from other things in some way or another. You don't believe analogies can be drawn between genes and memes? Between DNA sequences and ideologies?{/QUOTE]
Kindly show me some reasons. It's not a question what I believe or you believe. It's a question of scientific reasoning.
[QUOTE=cyu;1679957]You do realize this is a wild assertion, don't you? The very fact that we're even having this discussion means "some workers" object to centralization - or perhaps you don't consider me a "worker"? Why do you even think anarcho-syndicalism exists? Perhaps you believe it's a theory no real worker believes and is only something conjured up by academics as a hypothetical ideology?
Kindly show me some concrete evidence that "workers" oppose centralization. Not any kind of petty-bourgeoisie sect.

[cyu]

Kindly show me some reasons.

First of all, let me ask this: do you know what a "meme" is? If not, here is a brief introduction to memetics - from http://everything2.com/user/seeya/writeups/Memetic+Evolution

Analogous to the theory of genetic evolution, which operates in the realm of biological configurations of things, but instead operates in the realm of ideas and thought.

While biological systems are made up of many individual genes, thought systems are composed of memes. Each person is not only a carrier of a set of genes, but a set of memes as well. This set of memes, however, is easier to change within a person - parts of it are also easier to pass on to other individuals. Just as few individuals are genetically identical, few are also memetically identical.

In general, it can be said that a set of genes that better enables an individual to survive is more likely to be passed on to later generations of offspring. The same can be said of a set of memes. However, just as there are genetic urges to mate that may put at risk a person's survival, there are also memetic urges to propagandize that may also put biological survival at risk.


Not any kind of petty-bourgeoisie sect.

And do you define "petty-bourgeoisie" as anybody that disagrees with you?


Kindly show me some concrete evidence that "workers" oppose centralization.

Just look at any anarcho-syndicalist union. If you've never heard of any, here's a list from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism#Organizations

International Workers Association (IWA-AIT)
Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores - Secção Portuguesa (AIT-SP) Portugal
Anarho-sindikalisticka inicijativa (ASI-MUR) Serbia
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT-AIT) Spain
Confédération Nationale du Travail (CNT-AIT & CNT-F) France
Socialist Labor Party USA
Direct! Switzerland
Federace Sociálních Anarchistù (FSA-MAP) Czech Rep
Federação Operária do Río Grande do Sul - Confederação Operária Brasileira (FORGS-COB-AIT) Brazil
Federación Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA-AIT) Argentina
Freie Arbeiterinnen- und Arbeiter-Union (FAU) Germany
Konfederatsiya Revolyutsionnikh Anarkho-Sindikalistov (KRAS-IWA) Russia
Федерация на Анархистите в България (FAB) Bulgaria
Mreža anarhosindikalista i anarhosindikalistkinja (MASA) Croatia
Norsk Syndikalistisk Forbund (NSF-IAA) Norway
Priama Akcia (PA-IWA) Slovakia
Solidarity Federation (SF-IWA) Britain
Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI) Italy
Workers Solidarity Alliance USA
FESAL (European Federation of Alternative Syndicalism)
Confederación General del Trabajo de España (CGT) Spain
Ελευθεριακή Συνδικαλιστική Ένωση (ESE) Greece
Freie ArbeiterInnen Union Schweiz (FAUCH) Switzerland
Workers Initiative (IP) Poland
SKT Siberian Confederation of Labour
Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation (Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet, SUF) Sweden
Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden (Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation, SAC) Sweden
Courant Syndicaliste Revolutionnaire (CSR) France
Workers' Solidarity Federation (WSF) South Africa
Awareness League (AL) Nigeria