Obviously there are lots of errors and ambiguities in this quote, but I
think it gives the picture of this sort of argument (interestingly enough,
this is incompatible with the first argument I mentioned because under
capitalism large heirarchically planned companies are "selected" for).
Are there any counterexamples of more centralized animal species being
biologically successful or anyhting of the like?
I doubt that such counter-examples exist because centralized animal
species *are* less biologically fit for survival. It is not even
necessary to look to biology - in physics, engineering and in the
military, it is accepted that single points of failure are bad, and
redundant mechanisms are always provided for. (Twin engine aircraft is
one example though of course redundancy is not the only reason for
such design.)
The dangers of centralization really is a very good argument against
centrally planned socialism. But why is it necessary to have central
planning- why is socialism assumed to be inconsistent with a more
localised decision making process? Also who says capitalism does not
have the tendency towards centralization. Can anyone argue that
WalMart, McDonalds and ExxonMobil are not centrally organised and
planned entities? What about the US Federal government?
The centrlization argument goes both ways as I see it.
-raghu.
