> > BTW, free-market capitalism is only 'less-
> > centralist' it's not entirely non-centralist.
>
> IAN: OK, but can that claim be supported?
Yes.
> I would say that if the allocation of
> resources and commodity pricing is dir-
> ected by consumer demand and recourse
> supply, and if such is defined as FMC,
> then FMC approaches 100% decentralized.
> There may be capitalist enterprises,
> the internal structure of which con-
> form to a centralized set of rules.
> However, those enterprises are sub-
> ordinate to supply and demand.
'Government' is defined by the people - even the most totalitarian of
governments was and is defined by the people. Free-market Capitalism
is 'dynamic centralism' - although the point(s) of control may change
far more quickly than other centralist systems, they still exist. If
you were to take a single moment in time of an FMC system, you would
clearly see the consumer majority gathered around the supplier
minority. Currently we can't feel the collective benefit of our
actions, so we've created capitalism. With money you can immediately
feel the benefit of anything you do. However, the 'benefit' is
centralist because it must be defined.
A decentralised economy would be a network, which allowed the
collective benefit of any action to be felt in real-time, with no
centralised entity defining that benefit. Soon information will be
transmitted through an open network with enough speed to not require
the need of a capitalist system to relay the benefits. Physical
things may take a while to catch up, but eventually we could have a
100% decentralised economy.
--Wax
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com