Centralization is a tool that has uses, as does decentralization. Coordination at scale, with critical safety conerns, often requires centralization. Decentralization is just as vulnerable to corruption. Socialist states have used both in combination to achieve dramatically positive results, with collectivization and central planning being the backbone of said systems.
Doubt. Please explain, possibly with examples; practices incidents etc.
just as vulnerable
It’s not immune. It’s not ‘just as vulnerable’. You have to compromise a lot more stuff to fuck a decentralized system. If you’ve ever read cop doctrine; even they know this. They really love finding leaders; makes their jobs so much easier.
A quick example is local government vs regional government. Local governments do not have the same focus at a regional level that regional governments would over several local governments, while regional governments do not have the same view local governments would in detail.
As for decentralization being just as vulnerable, I mean that in the sense that fractured systems are easier to pit against itself. The US is a two party dictatorship, and is incredibly corrupt because of it.
Okay i think I can safely stop taking you seriously here
and is incredibly corrupt
Not a bug, working as intended (posadism looking real good about now)
because of (being two party instead of one?)
Um… So, wow, have you watched the news in the past decade?
local vs regional governments
Again, you’re thinking in the paradigm of what is and pretending you can understand everything, thinking a more abstracted perspective should necessarily corellate with authority, and thinking perspective and authority should be both bundled and personalized.
Edit: you’re also not explaining how this actually helps with anything. What’s your area of expertise?
Why would me giving an example of decentralization leading to corruption not be deserving of being taken seriously? The US uses its decentralized structure for corruption, as it does use centralized structures. My point isn’t that both are bad, but that both have proper and improper use-cases.
As for perspective vs authority, I’m well aware that one can see without having any power to change anything. I also know that that can become remarkably inefficient and result in catastrophe. We can make hierarchies accountable, democratic, etc, but the fact remains that they exist because of their utility and often necessity. Simply imagining a system devoid of hierarchy and trying to theorycraft it doesn’t actually mean it will function in real life.
DNC and GOP. They are united in that they both support capital, but are pit against each other to divide the working class. It’s an example of theatrics, and the disunity of the system to prevent real systemic change. Same with how separation of powers is used.
Decentralization and centralization can both be used for good and for bad, and both have use-cases.
Centralization is a tool that has uses, as does decentralization. Coordination at scale, with critical safety conerns, often requires centralization. Decentralization is just as vulnerable to corruption. Socialist states have used both in combination to achieve dramatically positive results, with collectivization and central planning being the backbone of said systems.
Doubt. Please explain, possibly with examples; practices incidents etc.
It’s not immune. It’s not ‘just as vulnerable’. You have to compromise a lot more stuff to fuck a decentralized system. If you’ve ever read cop doctrine; even they know this. They really love finding leaders; makes their jobs so much easier.
A quick example is local government vs regional government. Local governments do not have the same focus at a regional level that regional governments would over several local governments, while regional governments do not have the same view local governments would in detail.
As for decentralization being just as vulnerable, I mean that in the sense that fractured systems are easier to pit against itself. The US is a two party dictatorship, and is incredibly corrupt because of it.
Okay i think I can safely stop taking you seriously here
Not a bug, working as intended (posadism looking real good about now)
Um… So, wow, have you watched the news in the past decade?
Again, you’re thinking in the paradigm of what is and pretending you can understand everything, thinking a more abstracted perspective should necessarily corellate with authority, and thinking perspective and authority should be both bundled and personalized.
Edit: you’re also not explaining how this actually helps with anything. What’s your area of expertise?
Why would me giving an example of decentralization leading to corruption not be deserving of being taken seriously? The US uses its decentralized structure for corruption, as it does use centralized structures. My point isn’t that both are bad, but that both have proper and improper use-cases.
As for perspective vs authority, I’m well aware that one can see without having any power to change anything. I also know that that can become remarkably inefficient and result in catastrophe. We can make hierarchies accountable, democratic, etc, but the fact remains that they exist because of their utility and often necessity. Simply imagining a system devoid of hierarchy and trying to theorycraft it doesn’t actually mean it will function in real life.
Okay we clearly have different definitions of words. Have you ever actually been here?
To the US? Yes, I live here. Having a 2 party system is more decentralized than a one party system. Centralization is a spectrum, not a binary.
Where’s the second one?
DNC and GOP. They are united in that they both support capital, but are pit against each other to divide the working class. It’s an example of theatrics, and the disunity of the system to prevent real systemic change. Same with how separation of powers is used.
Decentralization and centralization can both be used for good and for bad, and both have use-cases.