The peril of centralization just there. Economies perhaps have to be de-centralized in order not everybody makes the same mistakes. — ssu
Let's decentralize companies too then!
That is another point of communist confusion. Because it is materialistic at heart, the loftiest entity that a communist can recognize is the State. And given that tyranny is the default position of the State, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of any state that wants to centralize power in order to bring about some hypothetical utopia. Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe
Fair warning; I'll be going off into a tangent here.
A higher standard of living for whom? At least from 1945 until 1970 health data of Soviet Union citizens improved more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe. The US meanwhile is lagging in many metrics compared to other "capitalist" societies. I don't think capitalism is a good indicator - or in fact that this is really a question of economics. A lot of rich people and politicians like to pretend it is, because it keeps them rich but the result is people subservient to the economy and a certain class all the while extolling the virtues of capitalism and individualism. Classes are real (anyone denying this, please study some marketing which still uses the NRS social grade) and consistently cause problems as there are no people "all free and equal" but persons that are “responsible and cooperating members of their respective groups” (Rawls).
In any case, the "tyranny of the State" is one of those catchphrases that I always find interesting. What is it? Is it their monopoly on violence? No problem in a democratic society. The tyranny of the majority? No problem when we have human rights and particulary due process. It requires a learned legal profession to produce good lawyers, informed and interested citzenry to make political choices and educated politicians, leaders and visionairs to put into public discourse what we should be talking about. We need a
vibrant society but what we have is egoism and decandency dressed up as philosophical liberalism. But there are political obligations related to liberalism that self-styled, winner-takes-all, laissez-faire capitalist individuals ignore (Randroids, tax-is-theft idiots and average US politicians).
When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to those restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission. (Hart, 1955: 185)
This is an argument for fairness but raises the question of what qualitative nature the benefits must have that they require a duty for the individual to perform their part (as the moral intuition is no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial). Enter natural duty theories.
Simmons believed in a debt of gratitude but fails to specify the content of the debt.
And of course there's consent to political obligation which is problematic as usually no such act is performed by citizens.
So, of these approaches, in my view the "fairness" argument can gain the most traction via natural duty theories such that the political obligation is not based on a moral transaction between people and wider society , but because it either a) promotes an impartial moral good, (utility or justice); or 2) is a moral duty owed by all persons to all others (universal rights).
Liberalism divorced from political obligation is just selfishness.