SoViEtTaNkT34
I have a Question:
Why would Soviets and not a centralized gov be more effective in combating Anarchy of social production?
Soviets are by definition centralised:
The workers in a factory/other worksite elect representatives to the factory soviet.
The factory soviet elects representatives to the local soviet.
The local soviet elects representatives to the regional/state/provincial soviets.
The regional soviets elect representatives to the national soviet.
The national soviet elects representatives to the international soviet.
Each soviet can recall and of its members, even if they are a delegate to a higher body, so that someone in the national soviet can be recalled by the factory soviet.
At the same time, decisions are made from top down with the highest soviet making the economic plan for the time period (traditionally 5 years), and portioning out responsibilities to the lower soviets, which each portion those responsibilities to lower soviets.
An example:
The South Pacific Soviet makes a plan for the next five years. Australia is given the task, among other things, of industriallising Java. Australia's industry is concentrated on the east coast, so the Austrlian Soviet gives instructions to the New South Wales Soviet to mine iron to make into steel, and coal to send to Java. The Victoria Soviet is given instructions to make such-and-such amount of steel out of the iron provided by NSW.
The NSW Soviet tells each of its mining regions to produce a bunch of coal/steel in accordance with abundance and labour, The regions then tell each of the Mine Soviets to get to work: we need *tonnes of iron by march, * by november...
That is centralised, no?
Reply
