- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Ahh now we have moved into what is thought to be realistic. That is a rather different argument, what is correct though is that some anarchists at least do have ideas that don't require massive centralised planning and coordination. I don't think the likes of Kropotkin had much time for ideas about global economies, he talked of the need for regional self-sufficiency and such(which is something I believe in even if I'm not a socialist but distributist.).I have. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is really good, and The Conquest of Bread is decent, but I don't think that any form of "decentralized" economy is realistic in any way. The planning and coordination of an entire global economy basically necessitates some kind of centralization - even capitalism centralizes economic coordination in the form of market forces (although this is more implicit centralization than explicit, as a planned economy would be). I've read some of Bookchin's stuff as well a long time ago, and found a lot of it to simply be "crap". I don't really know how else to describe it besides that; I've read other anarchist and "libertarian socialist" authors out there, but Bookchin is one of the worst.
I have only read a small selection of Bookchin myself, his attack on individualism in the liberal meaning was quite interesting.
I think it depends upon the level of autonomy and scope of the communities and the small-scale associations within them.I think this has more to do with how "centralization" is defined than anything.
For example, let us say that a bunch of decentralized communities send delegates to a congress which decides upon the administration of the economy. Is that centralized or decentralized to you?