#decentralism

The idea is that necessary resources and infrastructure are controlled democratically by their participants (rather than by the property-owning elite), yes – ideally in a super decentralized context whereby directly-democratic councils and assemblies coordinate community needs and set about fulfilling goals to meet them. Any elected “leaders” ought to be readily recallable if they do not meet their obligations or start consolidating power. The council formation has traditionally demanded that delegates come from the actual group they represent and that they continue to perform group duties otherwise, thus cutting down the tendency towards corruption. 

I appreciate, Anon, that you aren’t implying that your proposed scenario would “just wind up worse than capitalism” – it’s a common argument and it’s annoying as hell. “Won’t this socialist ‘paradise’ inevitably end up with a bloated corrupt elite taking advantage of the actual hard workers?? Why ruin an imperfect but good status quo in favor of something so highly corruptible??” I’d say “bloated corrupt elite taking advantage of the actual hard workers” already describes capitalism perfectly, as well as any class system we’ve historically had or could ever have. Class systems are inherently unjust because they’re structured around ruling class control of the stuff needed to reproduce society – the workplaces, the resource pools, the living arrangements, etc. – with the working class generating the actual goods and receiving meager bullshit as compensation. We look out and we see human nature as highly corrupt and prone to hierarchy, but that’s because we live in an environment that actively promotes corruption and inequality. We can overcome that environment and create a new world that promotes new values: solidarity, justice, compassion, egalitarianism, decentralism, direct democracy, creative self-actualization, etc. 

the problem with the theory of "autonomous communes" and localism is that it has the possibility of impeding on global workers democracy

a worker, in the global context, can be in the majority, but in the context of their commune, they can be in minority. This is very important important. There's nothing sacred about a commune, or a locality, and if i don't get why external authority can't impede on potentially reactionary and harmful local policies and structures, if there's a majority behind them.