What's the difference between 'centralized' and 'decentralized'?

[UnknownPerson]

What's the difference between a centralized and a decentralized government? And what's the difference between centralized and decentralized economical planning?

[Die Rote Fahne]

What's the difference between a centralized and a decentralized government? And what's the difference between centralized and decentralized economical planning?

The key in centralization is having a central authority, whilst the other is more bottom-up and consisting of no central authority, as such, but of democratic decision making.

[Black Sheep]

A centralized economy is an economy where production is determined after estimating the needs of goods to be produced.All communists support that (and social anarchists)

A decentralized economy is one where production units produce according to their own aims.For example, in capitalism production is planned with profit in mind: need has nothing to do with it (i.e. if a product is needed but there's no money to pay for it, it wont be produced.

A hybrid example of the two above is mutualism.

Centralized goverment is one that decisions are taken by a minority and passed on to institutions,local groups etc.Hierarchy is an inherent property of such systems.
Democratic centralism is a subset of that.

Decentralized goverment is one that decisions are taken according to how much it affects a community.For example a decision that affects only a small town would be taken by that town's people -in a decision that affects a whole province, all the towns,cities,villages would participate via federalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The key in centralization is having a central authority, whilst the other is more bottom-up and consisting of no central authority, as such, but of democratic decision making.Feudal Kingdoms were decentralized early-on but I would hardly call them democratic, more of a collection of semi-autonomous aristocrats who got together to sort out relations between their princedoms. On the other hand, a union strike vote by a militant rank and file is centralized but democratic and bottom up.

In governance centralization and decentralization are two ways of organizing and that's about it. In some situations centralization works better (such as a strike where you need all participants to decide something together and carry out the majority vote) whereas in other situations people don't need to coordinate as much and decentralization allows for more room for experimentation or for people to run things in ways that are specific to their location or occupation or whatnot.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Feudal Kingdoms were decentralized early-on but I would hardly call them democratic, more of a collection of semi-autonomous aristocrats who got together to sort out relations between their princedoms. On the other hand, a union strike vote by a militant rank and file is centralized but democratic and bottom up.

In governance centralization and decentralization are two ways of organizing and that's about it. In some situations centralization works better (such as a strike where you need all participants to decide something together and carry out the majority vote) whereas in other situations people don't need to coordinate as much and decentralization allows for more room for experimentation or for people to run things in ways that are specific to their location or occupation or whatnot.

I should clarify; in a socialist context.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I should clarify; in a socialist context.But again, centralized or decentralized is just a mode of organizing that - as far as I'm aware - says little about being top-down/bottom-up or democratic/undemocratic.

[Die Rote Fahne]

But again, centralized or decentralized is just a mode of organizing that - as far as I'm aware - says little about being top-down/bottom-up or democratic/undemocratic.

In that short reply you clarify the democratic nature of each. Top down is a small authority working out the planning. Whilst bottom up is a large group of equal level workers developing the planning.

[ckaihatsu]

Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://postimage.org/image/35ru6ztic/

[Tablo]

I think it would be good to decentralize economic planning to a certain degree. Planning the economy on a global scale has a habit of overlooking or doing a poor job of meeting the needs of smaller communes. I think planning should be more regionally based, especially when it comes to the necessities of life(food, water, medical supplies, building supplies, etc). There need to be different levels of planning for sure and ultimately a commune should have the right to opt out and do their own economic planning outside any authority from a central planning committee. All of this is pretty complex and ultimately I think different parts of the world will have different needs meaning there will need to be some level of decentralization.

[Broletariat]

http://i.imgur.com/rHcPR.jpg

On the left we see a centralised model, with an Anarchist of course protesting such things.

On the right is of course a decentralised model, with no room for me to draw a happy Anarchist (this is strangely symbolic).

Centralised anything just means that a single organ does... whatever it is we're talking about. Decentralised means the opposite essentially.

[ckaihatsu]

I think it would be good to decentralize economic planning to a certain degree. Planning the economy on a global scale has a habit of overlooking or doing a poor job of meeting the needs of smaller communes. I think planning should be more regionally based, especially when it comes to the necessities of life(food, water, medical supplies, building supplies, etc). There need to be different levels of planning for sure and ultimately a commune should have the right to opt out and do their own economic planning outside any authority from a central planning committee. All of this is pretty complex and ultimately I think different parts of the world will have different needs meaning there will need to be some level of decentralization.


Here's a decent argument *for* centralization, though the example could be better....





Tantalum minerals are mined in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, China, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. [7] Tantalum is also produced in Thailand and Malaysia as a by-product of tin mining and smelting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan


The idea here is that not every location in the world has the complete list of resources that its individual, respective populations would require as consumers. If certain, relatively rare resources -- including skilled labor and specialized manufacturing capability -- are to be 'communized' properly then some kind of administrative coordination will be required. This broad-based coordination, *by definition*, cannot be done on a local-communal basis -- it would *have* to be coordinated on some kind of "federal", centralized basis.

[Tablo]

Here's a decent argument *for* centralization, though the example could be better....





The idea here is that not every location in the world has the complete list of resources that its individual, respective populations would require as consumers. If certain, relatively rare resources -- including skilled labor and specialized manufacturing capability -- are to be 'communized' properly then some kind of administrative coordination will be required. This broad-based coordination, *by definition*, cannot be done on a local-communal basis -- it would *have* to be coordinated on some kind of "federal", centralized basis.
I completely agree total decentralization has serious shortcomings. Obviously, not every part of the world has vast and diverse mineral deposits to supplement production. One of the advantages the USSR had over other closed economy state-capitalist nations was the fact it had access to large amounts of resources. I would argue that was a major aspect in its success. I think raw materials should be dispersed amongst various communes by a more centralized authority, whereas production should be decided on a more decentralized basis. No matter the lack of certain resources, production ultimately comes down to human labor which every commune would have. The problem is a centralized authorty just can't really now the individual needs of each commune. So things that can be provided easily by each commune, such as production capacity, should be decided on a more localized basis.

[ckaihatsu]

I think raw materials should be dispersed amongst various communes by a more centralized authority, whereas production should be decided on a more decentralized basis. No matter the lack of certain resources, production ultimately comes down to human labor which every commune would have.




[T]hings that can be provided easily by each commune, such as production capacity, should be decided on a more localized basis.


Since human labor *is* a resource / "raw material", it, too, should be included as a resource in any (mass) decision-making process for production.

We're dealing with varying scales of social organization here, so it's important at this point to bring up the principle of self-determination -- this is the *political* complement to the *economic* liberated labor aspect of a post-capitalist society.

Such a political economy would have to resolve the political and economic aspects while also taking matters of scale into consideration.





The problem is a centralized authorty just can't really now the individual needs of each commune.


Why not? Would the "problem" be one of information? Or one of petty parochial attitudes?

Given an appropriate political culture of self-liberated self-determining liberated labor I don't see why the mass-political and the local-liberated-labor aspects couldn't be resolved in some historically progressive way.

[Tablo]

Since human labor *is* a resource / "raw material", it, too, should be included as a resource in any (mass) decision-making process for production.
I agree. I was just saying that the allocation of labor should be more localized.


We're dealing with varying scales of social organization here, so it's important at this point to bring up the principle of self-determination -- this is the *political* complement to the *economic* liberated labor aspect of a post-capitalist society.
Agree


Such a political economy would have to resolve the political and economic aspects while also taking matters of scale into consideration.

Also totally agree.



Why not? Would the "problem" be one of information? Or one of petty parochial attitudes?
I don't think some planning committee can really know or focus much time on working to meet the individual need of a smaller commune. I think that they should have a great deal of freedom in the economic planning in their individual community.


Given an appropriate political culture of self-liberated self-determining liberated labor I don't see why the mass-political and the local-liberated-labor aspects couldn't be resolved in some historically progressive way.
Also agree. I think different levels decision making would be made on different levels. I think a large region should be planning overall distribution of resources and production of things that need few production centers, but have wide use(like certain electronics). While the commune itself should be deciding on a more individual basis whether they need more or less housing or whether improvements in infrastructure are needed.

[Zanthorus]

In that short reply you clarify the democratic nature of each. Top down is a small authority working out the planning. Whilst bottom up is a large group of equal level workers developing the planning.

Except that has nothing to do with centralisation vs decentralisation. An organ can be both 'centralised' and 'bottom up', as Maurice Brinton pointed out:


It is worth pointing out, at this stage, that we doubt if there is any intrinsic merit in decentralisation. as some anarchists maintain. The Paris Commune, a Congress of Soviets (or a shop stewards' committee or strike committee to take modern analogies) are all highly centralised yet fairly democratic. Feudalism on the other hand was both decentralised and highly bureaucratic. The key question is whether the 'centralised' apparatus is controlled from below (by elected and revocable delegates) or whether it separates itself from those on whose behalf it is allegedly acting . This period witnessed a considerable fall in production, due to a complex variety of factors which have been well described elsewhere.

[ckaihatsu]

[I think] different levels decision making would be made on different levels. I think a large region should be planning overall distribution of resources and production of things that need few production centers, but have wide use(like certain electronics). While the commune itself should be deciding on a more individual basis whether they need more or less housing or whether improvements in infrastructure are needed.


I can't tell where your position on the following two points is coming from -- is it from *principle* -- ? Is it from *history* -- ?

You're arguing in a fomulaic way for small-scale autarky, at the same time that you're agreeing that there could be different levels of scale for the purpose of production and distribution (above).

By definition, mass-political decisions would be circumscribed to those same self-determining populations -- no self-liberated post-capitalist world would even *consider* one group of people *dictating* policy to another, as in an elitist, substitutionist, top-down way.

So if larger scales of production and distribution are required it would simply be the 'mass' scale being extended upward and outward accordingly. This political conceptualization shouldn't be taken as provoking any kind of controversy here.








Since human labor *is* a resource / "raw material", it, too, should be included as a resource in any (mass) decision-making process for production.





I agree. I was just saying that the allocation of labor should be more localized.








Would the "problem" be one of information? Or one of petty parochial attitudes?





I don't think some planning committee can really know or focus much time on working to meet the individual need of a smaller commune. I think that they should have a great deal of freedom in the economic planning in their individual community.

[Android]

Yeah, I have seen anarchists define de-centralisation in a way that makes it indistinguishable from centralisation.

I think it is just simply one of these meaningless dichotomies that anarchists seem to invent, the one in question only being outdone by the more common anti-authoritarian as opposed to authoritarian.