> I mean, if you think of a network with a "subscribe
> and publish" model, you would have a consumer who
> broadcasts a need, and a producer who is the first to
> pick up on that broadcast and who can fullfill the
> need. This does not require centralized planning.
> Believe me, I have as much "fear" of huge
> centralization as huge governments as anyone.
A decentralized network doesn't preclude cooperation at larger levels, say on a regional or intercontinental basis. For example, the international postal system is an example of cooperation on the international level that doesn't involve a centralized authority. Of course, it involves agreement between governments, but I think this is an example of how big things can be arranged in a cooperative fashion.
As far as Soviet centralized planning goes, I think we all understand that it was a massive failure. When big schemes fail, they hurt far more people than smaller scale arrangements failing.
<< Chuck0 >>
Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
INTERNATIONALISM IN PRACTICE
An American soldier in a hospital explained how he was wounded: He said, "I was told that the way to tell a hostile Vietnamese from a friendly Vietnamese was to shout ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ If he shoots, he’s unfriendly. So I saw this dude and yelled ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ and he yelled back, ‘To hell with President Johnson!’ We were shaking hands when a truck hit us."
(from 1,001 Ways to Beat the Draft, by Tuli Kupferburg).