💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › post-comprehension-balkanize.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:13:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: BALKANIZE Author: Post-Comprehension Date: Originally uploaded to YouTube on February 26th, 2021 and Medium on May 21st, 2021. Language: en Topics: complexity, balkanization, decentralization, structure, Breadtube Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvcOtavBv4 Notes: This is the (more refined) written version for Being’s video on balkanization.
Being has advocated for decentralization since the start of this
channel. So much so that in the state-capitalist video, leftism was
defined as “advocating for decentralization”. The issue, however, is
trying to explain to people how this works exactly. The presented
dichotomy of decentralization vs. centralization invokes some very broad
structural forms. So vague, in fact, that some added nuance is needed.
For example, while Balkanization could arguably be considered a form of
decentralization, does this make it inherently leftist? Well, at first
glance, one would assume, and almost immediately, my dichotomy has run
into an issue. So let’s further examine the dynamics involved in
balkanization. We’ll be using the fictional fascist country of
Sysescentstan as an analogy.
So, for whatever reason, Sysescentstan has been balkanized into four new
separate countries, each belonging to one of the former Sysescentstan
provinces. These four states are Municibara, Bahavia, Sourisia, and
Beingstonia, which are all fascists themselves. So we have fragmented
from one state to four. Arguably, we had one giant concentrated state
with one ruler, and now we have four smaller states with one ruler
ruling each. At least at first glance, a one-to-four ratio of scale, but
this isn’t really decentralization; it’s more of a type of fragmentation
in which the number of concentrated rulers goes from one to one. Instead
of one ruler ruling all four provinces, each of the former provinces is
still heavily concentrated, with one ruler ruling only one each.
The internal relationship of a top-down hierarchy hasn’t changed. The
difference is that the number of existing top-down hierarchies has
increased. So, for example, instead of one giant prison, we have four
fragmented prisons. This is very similar to the concept of
ethnopluralism, which some fascists use rhetorically to appear
non-racist, advocating a “separate but equal” mentality towards race and
ethnicity, wanting a world of separated and homogenized ethnostates.
This is based on a primordialist framework of ethnicity, which believes
that ethnicities (or races) are fixed, natural, and ancient. These
fascists aren’t “progressive” or “decentralist,” but rather advocate for
a world full of tiny prisons where everyone is forced to live within an
ethnostate because they have a certain race or ethnicity.
Decentralization is more about the lessening of concentrated power away
from a centralized authority, which gives those below more power. This
is a grand-scale and micro-process. Anarchism seeks the abolition of all
hierarchical relations in total, in which power is completely diffused
and individuated away, allowing for the maximum amount of agency and
choice possible. Giving more rulers and votes to people within a
centralized body can appear decentralized, as was the case when absolute
monarchism became liberalism, and addmitily, you could make the semantic
argument that the Balkanization of Sysescentstan was a decentralizing
process, but it’s still very much different from free association. The
rulership over the lands that was once Sysescentstan has decentralized
in scale, or at least the concentrated power over a geographical area
has been split up from one ruler to four, but the internal relationship
within these states is still highly centralized. This is why advocating
for ideological decentralization is just as important as merely
decentralizing on scale. Creating a million tiny fascist city-states, or
homogenized communities, or if your Hoppean “covenant communities” may
as well be a form of decentralization, it in no way exemplifies leftist
values like freedom of movement and egalitarianism.
Just because your warden is more intimate with you doesn’t make their
dominance any less bad. In fact, it can make it a lot more severe. Like
with a domestic abuser, the violence is more immediate and encompassing.
The abuser doesn’t have the police force or military at their disposal,
but they do have concentrated control over you in some way, be it
physical, psychological, or both. That’s why the ability to both break
free and reconnect is important for fluidity and transparency. The
ability to move freely is essential for free association and the
preservation of a truly decentralized and liberated world.