How would your state be organized: Poll.

[(A)]

http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/thepunisher129/e826f295-affc-4db6-a393-9e36677a88aa_zps7d38f5db.png
So there seem to be differences of opinion about how the transitional system would be best laid out.
Each station would be a point on the map with the decisions coming from the center point/points.

1. Would be a centralized state that makes the economic and political decisions.
2. would be akin to the American system,
3. Honestly I don't know a system to use as an example.

Tell me what you think.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think you would have to explain what the points and the links between them represent, first. Right now it's just a bunch of shapes that can mean anything depending on the interpretation (for example, do the links represent economic decision-making, political power, do they go in both directions, etc.).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't really care about the whole 'decentralised/centralised' rubbish that seems so arbitrary, simplified and devoid of context. Suffice to say, the only state I support would be one in the hands of the working class that works to suppress the bourgeoisie and destroy the last remnants of capitalism, private property and the class system thus rendering itself largely obsolete.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Broadly speaking, centralisation is the only form of organisation that is compatible with the demands of modern mass industrialised production. Much of the "decentralist" sentiment expresses the viewpoint of the soon-to-be ruined member of the petite bourgeoisie and his revolt against centralisation, planning etc.

Nonetheless it needs to be kept in mind that, as a workers' state exists in the context of global capitalism, a fully-planned economy is a bureaucratic utopia. To a significant extent there will be survivals of market mechanisms until the entire world is red.

Politically, to talk about decentralism in the sense of giving any region special rights vis-a-vis the centre is to negate democracy - which demands that the minority subordinate itself to the majority.

[(A)]

I have chosen distributive. I think that each region should handle it's own government and there own planning democratically under a universal constitution. This way no single man or group can destroy the whole by thinking himself better than his/it's peers or a region unable to take care of itself can't damage the whole; therefore allowing the others to help the weak link without themselfs being harmed.

"A system is only secure when no one has total control."

I have also made this choice because I do not see how a society can free itself of a state by implementing a larger more powerful one.

[DigitalBluster]

Like 870, I'd need to know exactly what I'm voting for. I can guess, but it'd be better if you'd just define your own terms.

Anyway, like GiantMonkeyMan, I think it's arbitrary (and idealist) to pick a system and try to make reality conform to it. Different situations call for different responses. It's obviously preferable (and practical) if local communities make certain decisions, but not necessarily all decisions. Some decisions are global in impact and scale, and obviously more suitable to centralization.

[(A)]

A centralized government is one where a very small minority make the political and economic choices for the whole. I believe that the USSR was a good example of this. They took info from around the country and developed economic plans based on them. A federal government.

A decentralized government is one where each region is represented in the form of its own government. A representative democracy style akin to the western style governments. Federal/state/municipal level governments all in charge of various tasks.

A distributive system where each municipality or even individual has the ability to make it's own choices. No/very very little federal or provincial government. I.e council communism, communalism or minimal statism.

I hope that is what you wanted. :o

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That is not what those terms usually mean in a political context, sorry. Centralisation means that decisions are made at the central level, at the level of the entire society. Decentralisation means that various local authorities act autonomously. The United States are decentralised to a significant degree.

A centralised public authority can be democratic (and indeed, that is how most socialists think the transitional revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat will be), and a decentralised state can be non-democratic (the various counties and duchies of France before royal centralisation, for example).

[DigitalBluster]

OK, then I disagree with your definition of centralization. I don't think it necessarily implies a lack of democracy; rather, it only implies a decision, once agreed to by all, be binding on all. It's exactly the same as a local decision, only broader. If you've seen The Day The Earth Stood Still, you can imagine a sci-fi scenario where global decisions become local. Well, we have global decisions to make in the real world, too.

Regardless, I can't vote, for the reasons I already gave.

ETA: That was to Democracy; 870 posted while I was typing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's obviously preferable (and practical) if local communities make certain decisions, but not necessarily all decisions.

Why would it be preferable, though?

[DigitalBluster]

Why would it be preferable, though?

Sorry, we were posting at the same time. I edited to explain that.

If you knew that and still want to ask: there are plenty of things better decided locally, like, say a neighborhood wants their homes to all be pink. It goes back to the individual, too: like if I don't want to wear a Mao suit, it's really none of Mao's business.

On the other hand, plenty of things aren't better decided locally. You shouldn't respect my fetish for classic musclecars if my pollutants are raining on your kids.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry, we were posting at the same time. I edited to explain that.

If you knew that and still want to ask: there are plenty of things better decided locally, like, say a neighborhood wants their homes to all be pink. It goes back to the individual, too: like if I don't want to wear a Mao suit, it's really none of Mao's business.

On the other hand, plenty of things aren't better decided locally. You shouldn't respect my fetish for classic musclecars if my pollutants are raining on your kids.

Right, but what to wear and how to paint your house are not decisions that the public authority should make, particularly not in socialism (Marxists say that in socialism, the government over men will be replaced by the administration of things). So we're talking about purely economic decisions. The problem, then, is that the vast majority of economic decisions impact people throughout the world. If the steel plant in Leningrad reduces its output, the railway factory in Canberra might find itself short of resources to complete railways needed in the Carnatics etc. etc.

[(A)]

On the other hand, plenty of things aren't better decided locally. You shouldn't respect my fetish for classic musclecars if my pollutants are raining on your kids.

I see that as an argument for municipalism.
I don't want to wear a Mao suit and I don't want to have your car spitting pollutants all over but I do want to fish and I do want to have lots of food industry so I can move from one region to another with more of what I want. Same constitution different municipal ideals.

I don't want one group telling everyone what to do, but I do want a society to function well. I feel the middle ground between complete freedom and functional society is small region democracy.

[DigitalBluster]

@870: In that case, we're agreed. And it begins with natural resources: proximity doesn't denote pride of place. Resources are held in common.

@Democracy: The fish aren't exclusively yours just because you live near the stream. Nor do regional variances imply that resources ought to be divvied up by goldrush economics.

[(A)]

@Democracy: The fish aren't exclusively yours just because you live near the stream. Nor do regional variances imply that resources ought to be divvied up by goldrush economics.

Sorry I think I was misunderstood. I meant a city or region that has a fishing industry or more access to recreational fishing (Catch and release). Not one region making profit over another. I might want to work as a fisherman or I may not want to live with a bunch of hunters or whatever (could be vegan).

[DigitalBluster]

Fair enough. But then what was your point? It's obvious that some areas are better suited to certain productive activities. And there's probably no reason why you shouldn't be able to work as a fisherman. But this has nothing to do with centralization versus decentralization, unless I'm still misunderstanding you.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry I think I was misunderstood. I meant a city or region that has a fishing industry or more access to recreational fishing (Catch and release). Not one region making profit over another. I might want to work as a fisherman or I may not want to live with a bunch of hunters or whatever (could be vegan).

In socialism, everyone would be free to choose their occupation (or to choose no occupation if they feel like it). But activities like fishing need to be coordinated on a social scale - you need to know what the demand for fish is, whether you're overfishing, how your fishing interacts with other human activity, you need to get nets, lines, hooks, boats - all of this can't be done at the level of a municipality unless you rely on market mechanisms.

And, again, you would be free to live where you want. But surely you don't mean to suggest "your" municipality should have the prerogative to expel hunters within its boundaries?

[exeexe]

I dont know something like this?
http://i60.tinypic.com/30cbmuh.jpg

[(A)]

OK I should stop cuss I cant seam to make my point without ms-representing my thought but here is a different try.

I don't believe people are evil and stupid and need a large bureaucratic system telling them what to do, what to think and what to feel.

I am against a central authority dictating the lives of the people who it clams to represent. Time and time again we have seen this come to pass threw the government. People who offer us freedom and work; then only free themselves and enslave the people.

I want a Distributive government where any such tyrants that could possibly arise to threaten the whole would be stymied by the basic lack of a federal stage for him/her to rise. Sure a bad man could come and poison one town or region but then the whole system would survive.

The idea of a distributive system is that each cell of the system acts on its own, for the whole. Each cell works together to form the state but is independently managed and democratically governed. No one party to blanket the world/nation/province; 7 billion voices to be heard.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

OK I should stop cuss I cant seam to make my point without ms-representing my thought but here is a different try.

I don't believe people are evil and stupid and need a large bureaucratic system telling them what to do, what to think and what to feel.

I am against a central authority dictating the lives of the people who it clams to represent. Time and time again we have seen this come to pass threw the government. People who offer us freedom and work; then only free themselves and enslave the people.

I want a Distributive government where any such tyrants that could possibly arise to threaten the whole would be stymied by the basic lack of a federal stage for him/her to rise. Sure a bad man could come and poison one town or region but then the whole system would survive.

The idea of a distributive system is that each cell of the system acts on its own, for the whole. Each cell works together to form the state but is independently managed and democratically governed.

The main problem is that nobody as advocating "a large bureaucratic system telling [people] what to do, what to think and what to feel". We advocate economic coordination on a social scale - that doesn't mean "being told what to think and what to feel", it means playing nice and cooperating with other people so you don't screw them over by, for example, delivering too little fish to the canneries.

In fact you seem to think (and you're free to correct me) that municipalities should be able to decide how their members live, which is far more imposing than anything the centralists on this thread have advocated.

[DigitalBluster]

The idea of a distributive system is that each cell of the system acts on its own, for the whole. Each cell works together to form the state but is independently managed and democratically governed. No one party to blanket the world/nation/province; 7 billion voices to be heard.

How does this work? If each cell is independent to such an extent that there are no broader levers of power to be seized (an thus your nightmare scenario be realized), then what sort of "state" could they form? Would it merely be an ad hoc coalition, formed as needed and immediately disbanded? I'll assume so, otherwise, levers.

I'd make a couple points on that:

1. It would have to be formed pretty much constantly, if you're to achieve the socialist distribution of global resources we all seem to advocate.

2. Why stop at the "cell" level? That's still a pretty awesome lever that the petty warlords of old would have salivated over. You might as well keep going own to the individual and form ad hoc "unions of egoists" when the mood strikes you. (But I can't see much getting done in that case.)

So your system is, again, pretty arbitrary. You acknowledge the need for coordination to get stuff done, but you pick a level to stop at, where you feel safer.

[(A)]

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

So yes a confederation of independent municipality who together form the larger whole for economic planning. So 10000 soviets confederated into one. With no single party or group no one person could take over the rest.


"Why stop at the "cell" level? That's still a pretty awesome lever that the petty warlords of old would have salivated over."What happens when some despot from another soviet comes over and starts to try and take over your town? I think the obvious action for the whole would be to remove the aggressor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_%28political_philosophy%29

---


"The main problem is that nobody as advocating "a large bureaucratic system telling [people] what to do, what to think and what to feel". We advocate economic coordination on a social scale - that doesn't mean "being told what to think and what to feel", it means playing nice and cooperating with other people so you don't screw them over by, for example, delivering too little fish to the canneries."No but it sounds like you are advocating the return of a USSR style system that did end up as a single party with a large and powerful leader who lets just say was controversial. I just want to prevent the bad while getting the good.

Small government, socialized means of production.
I think the best way to realize a classless stateless society is to make the state less and less powerful until it truly has no use. Not by giving it the means of distribution and production.


"In fact you seem to think (and you're free to correct me) that municipalities should be able to decide how their members live, which is far more imposing than anything the centralists on this thread have advocated."No more than the Centralists. I fear that one government will lead to corruption. By distributing power over to everyone then allowing them to chose how to live democratically. If a town wants to elect a single leader for twenty years they can, if they want to create a direct democracy they have that right or if they want to create a counsel for a little counsel communism that's cool.

Instead of one massive government you would have many little ones that together can make economic policy. Its a safety net.