> Yak Wax wrote:
> > ... Central does
> > not have to mean "control of many by the
> > few" it can be any 'many to few'
> > relationship (i.e. control of few by the
> > many.) ...
>
> Centralism, as I understand and use the
> term, means a regime where a single
> decision in the name of the group - whether
> made by decree or by universal vote - takes
> precedence over the decisions of
> individuals or smaller groups.
So are you in agreement with my previous statement? "Universal vote"
is a good example of "control of few by the many" just as "market
direction" could be (vote with your money?).
> Admittedly the term is not meaningful
> without a context, namely the scale in
> question. All voluntary actions of my
> body-parts are controlled by a single
> entity, so I am "centralist" on a small
> scale (bigger than I'd prefer, sigh).
> Similarly all the actions of the firm
> where I work (sixty-odd people) are
> coordinated by a few partners, so the firm
> as seen from inside is centralist. But
> outside, both I and the firm interact with
> many others as peers; this web of activity
> has no center.
But what about your firms interaction with individuals (i.e.
customers)? Do you consider that a centralist relationship? Your
customers control (vote by money) the company which takes precedence
over the decisions of individual customers or smaller groups of
customers. Individual customers don't set their own prices, decide on
which products you make, etc.
--Wax
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com