This is kinda nitpicky, but Marxists do want centralization, they just also want democratization. All of large production would be in the hands of government. The difference is that it would also be democratized, meaning this centralization works to extend the reach and influence of the average worker over a Capitalist system.
Anarchists, meanwhile, do want decentralization, but I would not say they are the only forms of Socialist.
This is very nitpicky and I’m sure you meant what I said, but I have had to explain to far too many people who thought Marx wanted essentially Anarchism but on a different time scale, so I figured I’d add this note to your good comment.
I said “decentralize power” in this case, yes, it would be a more centralized economic structure and a more centralized government, but it’s vastly less heirarchical, because it’s significantly more democratic, I think that’s still accurate, socialists don’t want to centralize everything, power in particular is something all socialists want to decentralize, because we want power to be in the proletariats hands, and the proletariat is many.
Even in the case of a vanguard party, the ultimate goal is democratization of the economy/state, among other things.
However, i am probably ALSO being nitpicky so whatever. Communists are a nitpicky bunch.
Yea, like I said I believe we agree, I just felt like it risked someone seeibg it as the “Marx was basically an Anarchist” bit. Communists indeed are nitpicky, lol
AES leaders have never been “saints,” no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn’t call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.
Communism isn’t bad, it just crumples as soon you put anything but saints in charge of it.
I’m not entirely sure anything works better in a long-term scenario though :)
This is literally the opposite of true, it’s true of highly heirarchical systems, not true of communism.
Socialist systems actually seek to decentralize power, meaning you need to be less reliant on people being saints… not more.
I don’t see why you believe that at all.
This is kinda nitpicky, but Marxists do want centralization, they just also want democratization. All of large production would be in the hands of government. The difference is that it would also be democratized, meaning this centralization works to extend the reach and influence of the average worker over a Capitalist system.
Anarchists, meanwhile, do want decentralization, but I would not say they are the only forms of Socialist.
This is very nitpicky and I’m sure you meant what I said, but I have had to explain to far too many people who thought Marx wanted essentially Anarchism but on a different time scale, so I figured I’d add this note to your good comment.
I said “decentralize power” in this case, yes, it would be a more centralized economic structure and a more centralized government, but it’s vastly less heirarchical, because it’s significantly more democratic, I think that’s still accurate, socialists don’t want to centralize everything, power in particular is something all socialists want to decentralize, because we want power to be in the proletariats hands, and the proletariat is many.
Even in the case of a vanguard party, the ultimate goal is democratization of the economy/state, among other things.
However, i am probably ALSO being nitpicky so whatever. Communists are a nitpicky bunch.
Yea, like I said I believe we agree, I just felt like it risked someone seeibg it as the “Marx was basically an Anarchist” bit. Communists indeed are nitpicky, lol
AES leaders have never been “saints,” no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn’t call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.