I just don't think that centralization is necessarily a problem or something to be avoided (I certainly wouldn't reject to decentralization however). Also I don't think simply centralization is a defining quality of a state. A decentralized, federated state is still a state. btw i shot you a friend request. I appreciate the interesting discussion and it's been nice to get some clarification on parts of anarchism I was unsure about.
Centralisation whereby we have a central state which holds ultimate authority in a region and allows for no horizontal decision making. We still need the things you advocate and we agree but it is that we have accountable and horizontal working organisation.
I disagree slightly. I think working class power must in some instances be carried out with a degree of centralization, with regards to international economic planning, military strategy, excluding bourgeois elements from power, etc. And I'll ask again cuz' i think it's really important to be on the same page here, what exactly do you mean by centralization? btw I need to get some work done (and go to sleep) so i'll have to postpone the rest of the convo until tomorrow. I appreciate the good discussion though.
But the central state apparatus applies to all bourgeois societies, because it is inherent in Capitalism. It is the idea of the concentration of power is not applicable with a communist society because the idea of centralisation itself constitutes a state class, who will in turn reform themselves into the new bourgeoisie. We must deconstruct such structures because they are not applicable to a worker-ran democratic society. To truly have working class power. We must have accountable and autonomous bodies which control their own decisions.
When you guys talk about centralization and decentralization, what exactly do you mean? With regards to the state I don't think decentralization/centralization, in terms of how power is exerted, is necessarily important. A bourgeois state which is highly decentralized, allowing autonomy to local organs of government (police, administrative bodies, courts, etc), is still oppressive and it's still a state, so I don't think the definition of a state is simply based on centralization. With regards to a workers state I think the emphasis should be on working class power and the transformation of production towards need and the abolition of wage labor, not simply local control of administrative bodies.
Well you could say our definition of the state is simplistic. Some of the things we advocate could be considered as a workers state of sorts. But the state to us is defined by the centralisation of political authority. There is a good thread on it in the Anarchist usergroup. I don't understand what you mean quite by the fetishization of decentralisation. It is just central to the idea of working class power. You describe alternative organs such as factory committees and workers councils but these are redundant unless they each have power.
keep in mind I don't want to generalize here. I don't really have anything against anarchists I just disagree with them on some stuff. My major problems with anarchism are its imo simplistic understanding of the state, its tendency to frame revolution based on "justice" rather than class power (I'm thinking here specifically of the debate between Chomsky and Foucault), and its fetishism of decentralization. I just think these are some things anarchism has to root out. As for the relationship between my ideology (luxemburgism/left communism with some sympathy for trotskyism) and anarchism there are some similarities. I tend to agree with anarchists that workers must organize into new democratic organs outside of the existing state structure (which I think includes unions and parties). This could be factory committees, worker councils, soviets, etc. I do have some other sympathies with anarchism (I used to identify as an anarchist actually) but I'm running out of space to list them.
Ok thanks for your elaboration. But in relation to your comment on our historical analysis, I don't think it is particularly underdeveloped or simplistic. It is just a tendency to side with the working class over centralised state authorities. As a Luxemburgist your analysis must not be that different from ours surely?
I'm honestly not interested in "who started it", and trust me i'm not too fond of stalin fanboys eitiher. I just now kind of see why anarchism gets such a bad rap, with regards to them being a bunch of whiny liberals lacking any meaningful social or historical analysis. Now keep in mind I don't think that's actually true, I just understand why people would draw that conclusion given the ideology and actions of some anarchists. i'm not trying to generalize anarchists, just to be clear.
ashamedly, I'm a university of Michigan fan. a pretty avid one at that. as for the nfl I'm kind of indifferent as I don't really like pro-sports in general, but I enjoy watching the dolphins and their wildcat offense.
