superborys
10th May 2010, 17:17
I've been continually reading the threads on this forum since I've joined, constantly learning more as I read, however, I see that there's a sort of contention between de/centralization.
It seems as if there is no gray area, either people decide everything themselves according to commune, which I understand to be anarcho-syndicalist, or everything is like it is today, where things are decided by a few.
Now, with this centralized system I'm sure that there would be a more egalitarian system of electing delegates, sort of like in ancient Athens where people were given posts at random. Certainly we can't give the average Joe who doesn't understand how company economy works and expect him to control the trade system in our post-revolutionary state, but we could get some better form of system.
With a decentralized system everyone is probably happier and more content knowing that they are the ones controlling their fates directly, and they know their laws thoroughly, but I see how that approach could be frighteningly inefficient and slow.
Now, I have not seen this perspective:
There is a hybrid of centralized people who are passionate about governing and such, maybe with an egalitarian system integrated into it, and then the laws require public approval before they pass. This is almost both systems at the same time, considering that the power is concentrated in a few people to bring up the issues and such, and then the people are the final say, they are allowed to see everything in plain view, and were (controversial point coming) required to participate in this process, just to make sure that everyone is heard.
Or, we would have a sort of confederation system in which the communes are independent and the confederation is basically a title that they all give themselves. These communes would follow their own laws with precedence above confederation laws
It just seemed odd to me that there would be such a great lack of gray space between these two points.
It seems as if there is no gray area, either people decide everything themselves according to commune, which I understand to be anarcho-syndicalist, or everything is like it is today, where things are decided by a few.
Now, with this centralized system I'm sure that there would be a more egalitarian system of electing delegates, sort of like in ancient Athens where people were given posts at random. Certainly we can't give the average Joe who doesn't understand how company economy works and expect him to control the trade system in our post-revolutionary state, but we could get some better form of system.
With a decentralized system everyone is probably happier and more content knowing that they are the ones controlling their fates directly, and they know their laws thoroughly, but I see how that approach could be frighteningly inefficient and slow.
Now, I have not seen this perspective:
There is a hybrid of centralized people who are passionate about governing and such, maybe with an egalitarian system integrated into it, and then the laws require public approval before they pass. This is almost both systems at the same time, considering that the power is concentrated in a few people to bring up the issues and such, and then the people are the final say, they are allowed to see everything in plain view, and were (controversial point coming) required to participate in this process, just to make sure that everyone is heard.
Or, we would have a sort of confederation system in which the communes are independent and the confederation is basically a title that they all give themselves. These communes would follow their own laws with precedence above confederation laws
It just seemed odd to me that there would be such a great lack of gray space between these two points.