Well, Klein may argue that any form of Centralization is wrong, but centralization works from time to time (well if well studied it does in facing coroporate globalization)
The power of workers in the multinationals section from Tony Cliff's
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/2000/millennium/chap04.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
centralization works from time to time
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
lol, interesting to see Marxist/Anarchist names debating with each other. Yes, Centralization worked plenty of times, what is wrong with that? It proves your sacred Anarchist infrastructure as wrong?
MFL
Aww, someone is bitter! Probably at the collapse of imperialist USSR! How lovely! And to think that fascist / nationalist Serbs were trying to centralize Yugoslavia whereas the reformists were trying to decentralize, ahh yes indeed, centralization has worked planty of times! Worked in what way? War??? Subjugation? Plenty of times 2al!!!!
Khalsuna mn hal centralization this centralization that 7aki. :S
Check Soviet Union prior to 1924, and check out what centralism what really meant (well will discuss it someday)
MFL
Selectivism is a clear indication of weakness.
The Soviet Union was a failing model from the beginning. In fact, especially in the South Caucasus, the takeover was facilitated by the fact that groups were busy sorting out ethnic differences. In the case of Azerbaijan for example, they could enter Baku because the Azeris had amassed their troops in Nagorno-Karabakh (in particular Shushi), which left the door wide open for a Bolshevik takeover. After the takeover the oh-so-successful centralized authorities started imposing a divide-and-rule policy, for example drawing borders that would place ethnic groups in enclaves with no land links to their kin. This was a typical method throughout. And then of course there was the language issue, and the attempts of the Bolsheviks to impose Russian and not only that but Russify languages. For example, they changed much of the Armenian spelling. This was done to create a divide between diasporan Armenians and Armenians in Soviet Armenia. And it was more or less successful. Most of the diaspora today speaks "Western Armenian", whereas the Armenians in the republic speak "Eastern Armenian", and many if not most of the speakers of the former don't understand the latter!
And so on.
All thanks to centralization. Yes, and drawing borders. That must've been fun. I mean, can you imagine determining borders over a cup of coffee or brandy.. How nice. Centralization indeed.
You did not read what I said: Pre-rise of Stalinism... the real boleshevics opposed any forms of Nationalism and opposed the "Fatherland" concept along with Liebnekht, Clara, and Luxemburg and plenty others. (Something Stalin would abandon in WWII). Centralization worked at one point, and I see it working again, rather just smashing things up :P
No way to face the capitalists without having minimum centralization. BTW, centralization of the international scale is not having few people talking, mind you, it was 100% democratic where people from all countries and specialties talked.
MFL
Centralization worked at one point
You still haven't mentioned WHEN, WHERE, and HOW it worked. The Soviet Union is a rather general term. Can you get more specific?
And actually, the Nagorno-Karabakh borders were carved up before 1924. In 1922. That is within the time-frame that you specified, hence why it was mentioned.
Mmm, centralization on the international scale = having everyone talking? Do you mean the WSF? *yawn*
1922 was the beginning of the turning point, and if you bothered to read the article, you would find that it is not refering to the Soviet Union. Centralization can be good if well planned. And what, WSF is not sufficient also to your standards?
ywns, modern anarchy
So just because it doesn't address the Union it means we shouldn't talk about it?
And previously you were talking about the Union and now that I pointed out that it was problematic before 1924 (the date you mentioned) it suddenly became irrelevant?
First it was centralization has worked "plenty of times", then it was centralization works, now it is centralization works if "well planned".
And no, WSF is not sufficient to "my" standards. All talk and no action makes WSF a stupid entity. I guess the bourgeoisie can always afford to talk and talk without taking action. And they all say that they are "still planning" for the "revolution". I wonder when that will be. Ah well, but I guess I am not "revolutionary" (i.e. elite) enough to know their secrets and the oh-so-secret discussions of some supposedly leftist groups in Lebanon (ahem). :)
And "modern anarchy"? Sounds like your standards have become higher than they used to be... Now you even have names and hierarchies... How nice.
I didn't, the example I was referring to was outside the union. Decentralization 100 % is disastrous (even Klein and Monbiot) admit it, but then thought worthwhile to give it a shot. Again, I did not say it was irrelevent.
If you want, the first victims of the rise of Stalinism was Georgia (yes, pre 1924), but it is good to analyze what they accomplished prior to that.
Personally, I never liked Anarchy in the 19th Century, and not really a fan of Anarchism of the 21st century (with its entire branches). I may agree with few general points, but c'est ca. They never proposed a platform, had no clue , and oh yeah, the Zapatistas supported plenty of the WSF and even were special guests.
The only Anarchist I agreed with is Victor Serge, who ditched the Anarchist International & joined the 3rd International :P
Even the WSF is not sufficient to your "standards", at least they generated new experiences to learn from, rather just grab a brick and throw it and celebrate the death of Capitalism.
MFL
:)
As for the Soviet Union, try managing a country while facing more than 11 invading army & an imperial backed White army. The policies they applied were remarkable, and the boleshevics as a whole (except those who would become Stalin's goons) even spent their time in the streets informing people their rights and what is the role of the Communist Ideology. For you it is a failing model, for me it is not
MFL
Post a Comment