Centralization or Decentralization?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

In a post-revolutionary society, would the economy be more centralized or decentralized. On one hand, decentralization is more intune with the scenario however every variable of an economy can't be planned decentrally especially if your commune can't make everything locally. I think there needs to e a mix of both. What are your thoughts? Explain.

[EusebioScrib]

We don't know. It depends on the situation. Whatever is more practical. In general things will be decentralized. There will be no governing body to determine what to produce and what not to. There may be delegates in an organization to help allocate resources from one region to the other (note: delegate, NOT representative...there's a huge difference). But people will decide for themselves what they want to produce and how to. I doubt there will exist such a thing as a commune not giving goods to another. Unless there is a need to isolate that commune because of ideology (i.e. racism etc), but I doubt that will happen. If a commune needs something they just send their delegate to that federal organization to say "Hey, we need apples over in Dubai!" so the Bologna commue delegate checks his records and confirms with his commune and says "Okay, send them some apples." I doubt it will be much different than that.

[apathy maybe]

Decentralisation is a must. It is going to be hard initially to ship stuff from one side of the country let alone from one side of the world to the other.

And decentralisation is better for ecological reasons as well.

After the revolution and after things have settled down, maybe we can start having a bit more trade and stuff. But not initially.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

But what about like say New York City. We can't produce our food, and decentralized trade is near impossible. Also do you know how long it would take commune by commune to decide how much of each product is needed? What if your commune is like in hicksville, Alambama and no one knows how to plan the economy? I think it'd have to be done centrally by a federation of workers and planners and then passed down to each commune where local planners could make adjustments. Everything would be equally distributed, however communes like which can produce certain things would have calculations which include trade with other communes

[BobKKKindle$]

In the early days of the revolution, economic production will probably be centrally operated through a powerful state planning council. In some cases, commodities will have to be siezed through force in order to ensure that they reach their destinations, and harsh punishements may have to be imposed for those who commit sabotage. This would be part of the dictatoship of the proletariat - it may be necessary to have an economic system that maintians some elements of the market (like Lenin's NEP) as people will of course be not ready to operate without a system of price controls which dictate supply and price. A More difficult question is who would exercise this council..

WHen the revolution has been defended and the Capitalist society desroyed, the means of production would be (re) de-centralised and the economy would be organised on the basis of worker's councils.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:57 PM
In the early days of the revolution, economic production will probably be centrally operated through a powerful state planning council. In some cases, commodities will have to be siezed through force in order to ensure that they reach their destinations, and harsh punishements may have to be imposed for those who commit sabotage. This would be part of the dictatoship of the proletariat - it may be necessary to have an economic system that maintians some elements of the market (like Lenin's NEP) as people will of course be not ready to operate without a system of price controls which dictate supply and price. A More difficult question is who would exercise this council..

WHen the revolution has been defended and the Capitalist society desroyed, the means of production would be (re) de-centralised and the economy would be organised on the basis of worker's councils.
That sounds good however I'm wondering how every single little product and the amount of it would be calculated locally? And how could communes organize themselves to trade with one another if they're completly independant.

[Janus]

I think you want to decentralize as much as possible in order to gain more efficiency. This goes for industry and politics.


But what about like say New York City. We can't produce our food, and decentralized trade is near impossible.
Well, why can't New Yorkers talk with the people from a commune that has the materials in which they need. Their are enough people in NY to get in contact with communes from many different areas and coordinate that way.

[Leo]

I would say a balance would do it, which we can call self-management or autonomy in evey level. So it works like this, every individual manages his or her life, and the communities they are in manage themselves in every level, until the self-managing community is global human community itself. So this balance is maximum decentralization that can be achieved while having the human society united and fraternal.

[nickdlc]

Isn't the obvious answer to use technology to help us to distribute goods and make desicions. Could it be possible that literally millions of internet forums and live chat sites would be set up to help facilitate the distribution and decision making process?

Also workers might want to agree on a standard unit of account. I have not read any technocracy stuff so im assuming the standard hour of labour would be the best choice.


Also do you know how long it would take commune by commune to decide how much of each product is needed?

At the start it might be troubling to decide how much of each product is needed because we have to know what people want right. How is this done? Remember under communism people actively decide what their needs are instead of their needs being mediated by the market. People could easily meet up in their workers councils and decide on production priorites like we need x amount of iron to lay the tracks for an awesome transportation system.


A general formula of production would be useful for book keeping purposes within each industry ie (c+p)+l.
(circulation means of production + fix means of production) + labour power expended = cost of producing a certain use value. This of course a decentralized economy i.e. all producers within the socialist commonwealth are actively participating in decision making.

[More Fire for the People]

I suggest that we organize cafés and small workshops under self-management. However, I favor the centralization of the means of production under congresses of democratic workers’ committees.

I believe that we can overcome the failures of past centralizations by utilizing the internet. For instance, the Soviet Union had to have specialists record weight, size, etc. and convert units from national to metric. Well, now, any worker with basic skills can record weight, height, etc. and easily upload those statistics to a center for planning.

[barista.marxista]

If you want a description of a nation-wide decentralized revolution, I'd recommend Andy Anderson's Hungary '56 (http://libcom.org/library/hungary-56-andy-anderson). I'm ten pages from the end, and it's inspiring.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:53 PM
If you want a description of a nation-wide decentralized revolution, I'd recommend Andy Anderson's Hungary '56 (http://libcom.org/library/hungary-56-andy-anderson). I'm ten pages from the end, and it's inspiring.
Has he talke about the fascistic aspects of the revolution yet?

[barista.marxista]

Yeah, those nationwide federations of workers' councils sure were fascistic. And the Soviet Union, when it crushed a rebellion of 10 million workers, harkened glorious liberation!

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:17 PM
Yeah, those nationwide federations of workers' councils sure were fascistic. And the Soviet Union, when it crushed a rebellion of 10 million workers, harkened glorious liberation!
I support the Hungarian Uprising of '56 but I'm not an idealist about it. The revolution was unorganized and could not sustain itself. If had succeded it would have to immediately supress the fascist movement within the revolution.

[rebelworker]

Back to the subject, I think its important to think about the kind of lives you want people to live after the revolution, what are the values of the "revolution", do you support communism.

For me grassroots democracy and workers controll of the economy are central to a succesful and complete transfomation of society. This is often ignored by intelectua; theorists whop are more into controll and power for their ideology/party.

A great deal of decentralisation is nessesary if average people are to have a say and activly participate in the running of society. As a working person it is very important to me that me, my family and friends/coworkers are not just "put in our place" after the revolution. We must have power. To see a new beurocracy and set of bosses and specialists runing things would be the ultimate insult to thoes who might give their lives with hopes of a better life.

Obviously a great deal of coordination is desirable, but this will have to come natuarally and be built gradually from solidarity between workers and communities and not forced from above. During the eventuality of a civil war or foriegn invasion obviously sme level of war measures might be encouraged by revolutionaries, but this must never override the goal of workers controll and direct democracy.

[apathy maybe]

Dear all those who desire a strong central state,
What do you think will happen to this strong distributive state after things have settled down? Do you think that it will magically disappear?

I think that probably those who will have tasted the power will not wish to give it up. So this is why I say, SMASH THE STATE! We do not really wish to replace one oppressive structure with another.
Yours Sincerely,
apathy maybe (anarchist)

[BobKKKindle$]

I think Apathy-Maybe Raises a very good point. The transition from the Dictatorship of the proletariat to what Lenin called "the sunlit uplands of Socialism' is always something that is difficult to describe, as it very much depends upon whom holds power within this new Socialist Society. If it is a vanguard, then there is the danger that this party will be unwilling to devolve power to the soviets and will keep it centralised in the hands of a state authority.

I personally envisage a Heirachy (dont kill me anarchists!) of workers councils, ranging from communal soviets, to reigonal bodies, to a national economic bureau. This NEB would be manned by elected representivies of industries and/or reigons. During the DoP, the power of decision making would be concentrated at the highest level, but over time, power would be devolved to lower levels through a democratic legislative process, based on a timetable for devolution. Note that those at the highest level are democratically elected, so there is no possibility of a permanant economic politburo arising. In the long run, the NEB could even be dismantled in favour of decentralised planning.


SMASH THE STATE

Lets Smash the Bourgeois State, sure. But do you think that opposition to any form of State (even one based on reigonal workers councils) is legit, especially if a strong central economy is required?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)I personally envisage a Heirachy (dont kill me anarchists!) of workers councils, ranging from communal soviets, to reigonal bodies, to a national economic bureau. This NEB would be manned by elected representivies of industries and/or reigons. During the DoP, the power of decision making would be concentrated at the highest level, but over time, power would be devolved to lower levels through a democratic legislative process, based on a timetable for devolution. Note that those at the highest level are democratically elected, so there is no possibility of a permanant economic politburo arising. In the long run, the NEB could even be dismantled in favour of decentralised planning.[/b]We won't kill you yet, just when you try and enforce you crazy rules on us.

I do not understand the need for this complex arrangement. Why not simply have an executive that controls the lot? Sort of how the British do it now. Oh wait ...

Democratically elected? Wasn't Stalin elected from the ranks of the party?

The problems with having layers that elected the layer above from their own members are many.
1) The higher you get, the less in touch with reality the people are. The less in touch with the workers.
2) There is no way the highest levels are giving to give up their power to the lower levels.
3) There are more, but I just can't think of them.

The main reason that (some) anarchists oppose hierarchy is that it forces those below to do things. The reason anarchists do not like the state is that it is organised oppressive violence. It does not matter what the state calls it self, it is a small section of the population ruling (most of) the rest.


bobkindles
Lets Smash the Bourgeois State, sure. But do you think that opposition to any form of State (even one based on reigonal workers councils) is legit, especially if a strong central economy is required?Yes. See answer above.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

If you want a description of a nation-wide decentralized revolution, I'd recommend Andy Anderson's Hungary '56. I'm ten pages from the end, and it's inspiring.

And that was successful, wasn't it?


What do you think will happen to this strong distributive state after things have settled down? Do you think that it will magically disappear?

If it works, I don't see a problem. However I do think that State-Planners for example would have term limits and eventually once everything becomes clockwork, we won't replace people once their term is up. Also I think any given planner could be called back at any moment by popular referendum

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I personally envisage a Heirachy (dont kill me anarchists!) of workers councils, ranging from communal soviets, to reigonal bodies, to a national economic bureau. This NEB would be manned by elected representivies of industries and/or reigons. During the DoP, the power of decision making would be concentrated at the highest level, but over time, power would be devolved to lower levels through a democratic legislative process, based on a timetable for devolution. Note that those at the highest level are democratically elected, so there is no possibility of a permanant economic politburo arising. In the long run, the NEB could even be dismantled in favour of decentralised planning.

I think that's a good plan. You could have candidates who would favor dencentralization, and if the people vote for them, then they can move to decentralize however I just can't figure out how a decentralized system would work. Something needs to mediate trade, unify the communes, and protect against capitalist invaders. The only time in history when there was a decentralized community was acncient greece and look at what happened to them! They literally killed each other!

[nickdlc]

How hard is it to add, subtract, multiply and divide? That's all the knowledge thats needed for everyone to be able to participate in book keeping proccess under socialism. When we descend into state planners all were really saying is some person is going to subjectively distribute use-values instead of their being an objective mode of production that is actually run by workers themsleves.


Something needs to mediate trade, unify the communes, and protect against capitalist invaders. Again workers can easily do it themselves with the help of social book keeping through labour time. All state planners will do is take the initiative from the workers and create a nanny state. If these state planners have effective control over distribution and what is being made and workers have no right to question their decisions because they were suposedly voted in how is this different from the USSR?


And that was successful, wasn't it? Could have been if it wasn't brutally crushed.

[elmo sez]

What about a socialist state with a mix of centralised and decenralised , for example the basic neceesities like electricity , water , sewage , etc would be government owned but run democratically by the workers/some citizen representatives, while all factories and services like businesses shops etc would be run and owned by the workers democratically?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

How hard is it to add, subtract, multiply and divide? That's all the knowledge thats needed for everyone to be able to participate in book keeping proccess under socialism. When we descend into state planners all were really saying is some person is going to subjectively distribute use-values instead of their being an objective mode of production that is actually run by workers themsleves.

Planning an economy that feeds, clothes, comforts, and houses your town is harder than multiplication and subraction and division. You need to calculate how much crop to plant, how many pans and pots a community needs, and etc... with limited resources. You only have what's in your community. A Cenralized Economy Beareau would have supercomputers, teams of planners, and experts which your average po-dunk small town doesn't have. While decentralization may work in a small society, it could be a disaster in a large one. Especially in large communes. However I do see your logic and that's why I think the planning should be passed down to the regional councils and communal councils which could make adjustments.


Again workers can easily do it themselves with the help of social book keeping through labour time. All state planners will do is take the initiative from the workers and create a nanny state.

Could you explain this more? I'm not sure I understand.



If these state planners have effective control over distribution and what is being made and workers have no right to question their decisions because they were suposedly voted in how is this different from the USSR?

I envision the every council from the centralized ones to the local ones consisting 50% of worker delegates/representitives and 50% of planners. Maybe not exactly but the point is that I envision worker's rights taking a huge part in the decision making.

[nickdlc]

What about a socialist state with a mix of centralised and decenralised , for example the basic neceesities like electricity , water , sewage , etc would be government owned but run democratically by the workers/some citizen representatives, while all factories and services like businesses shops etc would be run and owned by the workers democratically?No. Everybody owns everything or on the flipside no one owns anything that is of MoP. This is the meaning behind common ownership. What would be the use of ownership under socialism anyway? To extract profit?


You need to calculate how much crop to plant, how many pans and pots a community needs, and etc... with limited resources. People all of a sudden can't count under socialism?


Could you explain this more? I'm not sure I understand. Whats the job of a state planner? It's to make decisions on behalf of workers or the same thing to take decisions away from workers. The state planner says to the workers make 10,000 tv's, make 50,000 cars of this type of this size etc etc And if you don't make it within this time limit you are a counter revolutionary! I mean if you have state planners wtf is the use of soviets/worker councils? all the economic decisions have already been made the workers councils are redundant. The worker doesn't give two shits about what he/she's making all they want to do is finish their work and go back home.

What social book keeping and labour time does is make the state planner redundant because now workers meet up in their councils and say okay we need this and this and these are our priorities. Workers then carry out what needs to be done and then meet up again to decide on new priorites. Here everybody is a "state planner" and it's ultra democratic.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:18 AM




People all of a sudden can't count under socialism?

Umm..it's not that simple. communes can have thousands of people and thousands of products. Making to little could be a disaster while making too much would be a waste.


Whats the job of a state planner? It's to make decisions on behalf of workers or the same thing to take decisions away from workers. The state planner says to the workers make 10,000 tv's, make 50,000 cars of this type of this size etc etc And if you don't make it within this time limit you are a counter revolutionary! I mean if you have state planners wtf is the use of soviets/worker councils? all the economic decisions have already been made the workers councils are redundant. The worker doesn't give two shits about what he/she's making all they want to do is finish their work and go back home.

I invision state planners and city and regional planners as a sect of the council. The workers and planners come up with reasonable decisions together.

And no I don't think if you don't meet the goal you are counter-revolutionary however I do think there should be a strike system so that people can't just slack constantly.


What social book keeping and labour time does is make the state planner redundant because now workers meet up in their councils and say okay we need this and this and these are our priorities. Workers then carry out what needs to be done and then meet up again to decide on new priorites. Here everybody is a "state planner" and it's ultra democratic.

I still don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid. Sure everyone should do equal time and there which is why there should be individual goals subject to appeal if they're to hard.

[nickdlc]

Umm..it's not that simple. communes can have thousands of people and thousands of products. Making to little could be a disaster while making too much would be a waste. And wouldn't it be better if those thousands of people were actively taking part in the decision making process so that they get what they want?


And no I don't think if you don't meet the goal you are counter-revolutionary however I do think there should be a strike system so that people can't just slack constantly. Sorry comrade i dont think your thinking this through. With decentralization you have tons more incentives to want to work hard than if all your decisions are being made by someone else. In fact slacking constantly was a problem in the USSR where state planners were predominant!

I dont know why you see a need for state planners since the calculation for each industry is so easy to understand that a child with basic math skills could do it.

remember this :)


(C + P) + L = use values
(raw materials + machinery) + labour power expended = total labour time taken to create a set of use values (products).

Say we have a collective farm where corn is produced i can give you a situation where this calculation would be used.

Say workers allocated raw material with 5000 labour hours embodied to produce these raw materials (seed, soil, fertilizer....) and another 10 000 labour hours for machinery needed to produce corn. These materials come from other productive establishments but they are not "paid" for but merely written down for book keeping purposes which in time will give workers councils much needed statistics on the consuming habits of the population for future planning by workers councils.

So the raw material plus the machinery (MoP) is 15,000 hours of past labour needed to start the production of corn. Now say throughout the season 10,000 hours of living labour in conjunction with the past labour produces 10,000 bushels of corn (each bushel being 56 pounds of corn).

Using the formula we can get the exact price of each bushel of corn.

(c + p) + l
(5000 + 10,000) + 10,000 = 25,000 hours of labour spent producing 10,000 bushels of corn

25,000 / 10,000 = 2.5 labour hours spent producing 1 bushel of corn. This is the final price of each bushel!

Very simple right? Now imagine each productive establishment finding the price of each use value this way, why the hell would we need state planners?

edit: changed the number of bushels produced to make it more easy to understand

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Wait I understand but what does this have to do with supplying everyone with the corn they need. Sure we have the price of labor per each bushel of corn but what does that have to do with producing enough corn for everyone.

[nickdlc]

What I'm showing you is that workers can use this information for distribution without the help of planners! Just because you have state planners do you think more corn will magically be produced? If productive technology is not up to date it won't matter how many planners you have, you will only be able to grow a certain amount of corn with a certain amount of technological machinery. Through a system of social book keeping the workers effectively own the means of production where-as if we had state planners their subjective whims of what to produce would take the right to use the MoP however they wanted away from workers.

Now that we have the social cost of producing a bushel of corn workers can organize production and distribution of this corn how they see fit!

[Rawthentic]

I agree with the comrades who advocate decentralization. I believe that through centralization and thus hierarchy, the workers become alienated, that which was fought against under capitalism. I believe that it would be better for horizontality with the workers owning all the means of production and without the need for state-planners, since they would plan everything for themselves such as what they need and how much they need. Centralization gives power and authority to a few, most likely creating a new ruling class.

[elmo sez]

OK so , so far Ive established that all the MOP are run by workers, noobody owns the MoP. And the workers only produce whats needed. THey do this by organising and keeping in contact with other places. So everyone knows what everyone needs.

The freely donate these good to one another, because giving stuff away benefits them in the long run because theyll get what they need.

However my problem comes with the individual , how to transactions take place between individuals ? like how do i get , not the necessities, because eveyone just gets them , but like other things like a computer or i dont know a camera thinks that i need personaly but that everyone else doesnt need ?

[nickdlc]

However my problem comes with the individual , how to transactions take place between individuals ? like how do i get , not the necessities, because eveyone just gets them , but like other things like a computer or i dont know a camera thinks that i need personaly but that everyone else doesnt need ? Well it's really easy you go to a store and buy it, unless it's already been fully socialized Whats great about the LTV system is that you pay for the exact cost of the labour taken to produce the product (no profit involved). If you went to any store you'd see the exact same price for that type of camera.

[nickdlc]

However my problem comes with the individual , how to transactions take place between individuals ? like how do i get , not the necessities, because eveyone just gets them , but like other things like a computer or i dont know a camera thinks that i need personaly but that everyone else doesnt need ? Well it's really easy you go to a store and buy it, unless it's already been fully socialized Whats great about the LTV system is that you pay for the exact cost of the labour taken to produce the product (no profit involved). If you went to any store you'd see the exact same price for that type of camera.

[nickdlc]

However my problem comes with the individual , how to transactions take place between individuals ? like how do i get , not the necessities, because eveyone just gets them , but like other things like a computer or i dont know a camera thinks that i need personaly but that everyone else doesnt need ? Well it's really easy you go to a store and buy it, unless it's already been fully socialized Whats great about the LTV system is that you pay for the exact cost of the labour taken to produce the product (no profit involved). If you went to any store you'd see the exact same price for that type of camera.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Just because you have state planners do you think more corn will magically be produced?

Now that we have the social cost of producing a bushel of corn workers can organize production and distribution of this corn how they see fit!
No corn will magically appear however that would not be the jobs of state planners. State planners would calculate how much is needed per people on every industry and how much land or space should be allocated for homes, for industry, and for corn fields. It's not as easy as you make it sound as organizing production and distribution is 2/3 of the equation. Besides, with modern day technology, computers can do most of the calculation.

In order to avoid beaurocracy, I think planners and worker representitives in every council should be elected by the voters and subject to re-call at any time.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Just because you have state planners do you think more corn will magically be produced?

Now that we have the social cost of producing a bushel of corn workers can organize production and distribution of this corn how they see fit!
No corn will magically appear however that would not be the jobs of state planners. State planners would calculate how much is needed per people on every industry and how much land or space should be allocated for homes, for industry, and for corn fields. It's not as easy as you make it sound as organizing production and distribution is 2/3 of the equation. Besides, with modern day technology, computers can do most of the calculation.

In order to avoid beaurocracy, I think planners and worker representitives in every council should be elected by the voters and subject to re-call at any time.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Just because you have state planners do you think more corn will magically be produced?

Now that we have the social cost of producing a bushel of corn workers can organize production and distribution of this corn how they see fit!
No corn will magically appear however that would not be the jobs of state planners. State planners would calculate how much is needed per people on every industry and how much land or space should be allocated for homes, for industry, and for corn fields. It's not as easy as you make it sound as organizing production and distribution is 2/3 of the equation. Besides, with modern day technology, computers can do most of the calculation.

In order to avoid beaurocracy, I think planners and worker representitives in every council should be elected by the voters and subject to re-call at any time.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think in short, there should be a healthy mix of power. The central body may calculate how much of everything is needed per person and how a general commune should split land. I think that the people will be almost advisors because computer systems would play a large part. Than the economic planning would be passed down to a regional economic senate which could make any changes it wanted. Finally it'd be passed down to the soviet communals where lots of changes unique to the commune would be made.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think in short, there should be a healthy mix of power. The central body may calculate how much of everything is needed per person and how a general commune should split land. I think that the people will be almost advisors because computer systems would play a large part. Than the economic planning would be passed down to a regional economic senate which could make any changes it wanted. Finally it'd be passed down to the soviet communals where lots of changes unique to the commune would be made.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think in short, there should be a healthy mix of power. The central body may calculate how much of everything is needed per person and how a general commune should split land. I think that the people will be almost advisors because computer systems would play a large part. Than the economic planning would be passed down to a regional economic senate which could make any changes it wanted. Finally it'd be passed down to the soviet communals where lots of changes unique to the commune would be made.

[anomaly]

You know, that would work very well, because we all know how efficient bureacracies are. <_<

LeftHenry, it is not 1917. A bureacracy is no longer the most efficient method of economic planning, thus eliminating any &#39;central authority&#39; which you may crave. Rather, with new technology, now the most efficient way to plan production is on a local level with extensive communication between producers and distributers. I think these simple material conditions will put an end to all Leninist hopes of this central authority.

Decentralization is the obvious answer.

[anomaly]

You know, that would work very well, because we all know how efficient bureacracies are. <_<

LeftHenry, it is not 1917. A bureacracy is no longer the most efficient method of economic planning, thus eliminating any &#39;central authority&#39; which you may crave. Rather, with new technology, now the most efficient way to plan production is on a local level with extensive communication between producers and distributers. I think these simple material conditions will put an end to all Leninist hopes of this central authority.

Decentralization is the obvious answer.

[anomaly]

You know, that would work very well, because we all know how efficient bureacracies are. <_<

LeftHenry, it is not 1917. A bureacracy is no longer the most efficient method of economic planning, thus eliminating any &#39;central authority&#39; which you may crave. Rather, with new technology, now the most efficient way to plan production is on a local level with extensive communication between producers and distributers. I think these simple material conditions will put an end to all Leninist hopes of this central authority.

Decentralization is the obvious answer.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Than it shouldn&#39;t be a beaurocracy. Planners on all levels should be elected. Complete decentralization won&#39;t work. Why? Because when will people in every commune find the time to take each and every product from pots to pans to shovels and allocate space, production, and means of aquiring raw product? Think about what it takes to make a simple shovel. You need a mine for the iron. A lumber mill for the wood. Smiths to hammer the iron, and a factory to fasten the wood onto the shovel head. Everything simply can&#39;t be made locally in every commune. So trade would be neccessary but trade would be impossible considering how many communes there are which can&#39;t produce any food and how trade would be regulated and exchanged equally.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Than it shouldn&#39;t be a beaurocracy. Planners on all levels should be elected. Complete decentralization won&#39;t work. Why? Because when will people in every commune find the time to take each and every product from pots to pans to shovels and allocate space, production, and means of aquiring raw product? Think about what it takes to make a simple shovel. You need a mine for the iron. A lumber mill for the wood. Smiths to hammer the iron, and a factory to fasten the wood onto the shovel head. Everything simply can&#39;t be made locally in every commune. So trade would be neccessary but trade would be impossible considering how many communes there are which can&#39;t produce any food and how trade would be regulated and exchanged equally.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Than it shouldn&#39;t be a beaurocracy. Planners on all levels should be elected. Complete decentralization won&#39;t work. Why? Because when will people in every commune find the time to take each and every product from pots to pans to shovels and allocate space, production, and means of aquiring raw product? Think about what it takes to make a simple shovel. You need a mine for the iron. A lumber mill for the wood. Smiths to hammer the iron, and a factory to fasten the wood onto the shovel head. Everything simply can&#39;t be made locally in every commune. So trade would be neccessary but trade would be impossible considering how many communes there are which can&#39;t produce any food and how trade would be regulated and exchanged equally.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, beaurocracy should be eliminated completely for it alienates the people from the planners, creating a new ruling class. Horizontalism is needed, where, like LeftHenry said, planners are the workers themselves and subject to recall at any time from the planning position. This creates a greater equality, classless society, and transparency.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, beaurocracy should be eliminated completely for it alienates the people from the planners, creating a new ruling class. Horizontalism is needed, where, like LeftHenry said, planners are the workers themselves and subject to recall at any time from the planning position. This creates a greater equality, classless society, and transparency.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, beaurocracy should be eliminated completely for it alienates the people from the planners, creating a new ruling class. Horizontalism is needed, where, like LeftHenry said, planners are the workers themselves and subject to recall at any time from the planning position. This creates a greater equality, classless society, and transparency.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah they would have to be workers and good at math lol

BTW I noticed you changed your avatar from a leninist to a leninist symbol.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah they would have to be workers and good at math lol

BTW I noticed you changed your avatar from a leninist to a leninist symbol.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah they would have to be workers and good at math lol

BTW I noticed you changed your avatar from a leninist to a leninist symbol.

[Rawthentic]

How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism

[Rawthentic]

How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism

[Rawthentic]

How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:00 AM
How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism
it&#39;s more of a symbol of the Russian and Chinese revolutions than of communism in general. Just the way the star looks seems russian, don&#39;t you think?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:00 AM
How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism
it&#39;s more of a symbol of the Russian and Chinese revolutions than of communism in general. Just the way the star looks seems russian, don&#39;t you think?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:00 AM
How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism
it&#39;s more of a symbol of the Russian and Chinese revolutions than of communism in general. Just the way the star looks seems russian, don&#39;t you think?

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:00 AM
How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism
A Hammer and Sickle are totally Leninist. The sickle would have been left out if it was just Marxist. Lenin promoted &#39;team-work&#39; between the rural workers and the urban ones, Marx did not.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:00 AM
How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism
A Hammer and Sickle are totally Leninist. The sickle would have been left out if it was just Marxist. Lenin promoted &#39;team-work&#39; between the rural workers and the urban ones, Marx did not.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:00 AM
How is that a Leninist symbol? If it is, Ill change it. I thought a red star was a universal symbol of communism
A Hammer and Sickle are totally Leninist. The sickle would have been left out if it was just Marxist. Lenin promoted &#39;team-work&#39; between the rural workers and the urban ones, Marx did not.