Socialist Progressives
In reply to the discussion: Libertarian Communism - your thoughts? [View all]LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)The only time I've ever heard argument against that is... when threats of invasions (or fact of invasions) from abroad have forced a more decisively capable organizing system upon a state.
A state perpetually threatened with (and repeatedly exposed to the reality of) armed invasions from without, can not be criticized for centralizing it's control/governmental structures (thus eliminating the possibility of disruptions stemming from disagreements that are not democratically solvable in a prompt manner in all the localities involved.. in time of crisis).
In a time of relative peace power would obviously be devolved to local councils (or soviets, as they were called in the USSR)... and consensus or majority rule would be the deciding factor.
On the other hand... if there's an extremely large country with a lot of locally idiosyncratic facts and so on to be factored in... the idea of each of the local councils having, collectively, full control when the local councils have no way of knowing the "big picture" is.. kind of idiotic.
Managing and running a large "organization" requires a bureaucracy... whether that "organization" is a corporation, an NGO, a charity, or a country. The idea of "doing away with" the bureaucracy, in order to solve some anarchistic wet-dream, is simply un-workable... even a county of 2500 people in the US has a bureaucracy, the idea of a nation, or planet, without is just ridiculous...
I'm curious though, why you don't seem to consider the "bureaucrats" handling things in a bureaucratic system.... to be, themselves, "workers"?
Why would you think that they wouldn't be responsive to the queries and concerns of the (real?) "workers"? And,if they are responsive... then what's the problem again?