I used to consider myself a libertarian socialist and was totally in favor of as much decentralization as possible. But now I'm starting to realize that a healthy degree of centralization is necessary or even inevitable if we are to fight capitalism properly.
Regulations that try to fight off the exploitative aspects of lassies-faire capitalism work the best when they are done on a larger, trans-national scale, in a centralized manner, since in this way, the negotiation power of the working class is higher. Take a law such as the minimum wage, for example. Imagine the disaster that would ensue if the minimum wage was different in each city, instead of being implemented at a national level. The companies that hire in cities where wages are higher would just move to cities where wages are lower in order to lower the cost of labor and increase their profits. And in fact, this is already happening: labor is very often outsourced in regions of the world where salaries are lowest.
Now imagine the reverse example: if instead of each country in Europe having a different minimum wage, we would have a single minimum wage at the level of the EU. Companies would no longer outsource their labor to countries where the minimum wage is lower, since wages would be more similar across the EU. This would mitigate the “race to the bottom” dynamic where poorer nations are forced to suppress wages to attract foreign investment.
The benefits of centralization extend beyond wages. Consider labor protections such as paid sick leave, workplace safety standards, and maximum work hours. Without centralized regulations, countries or regions are pitted against one another, competing to attract businesses by lowering labor standards. A centralized system could ensure these protections are universally applied, reducing exploitation and improving the quality of life for workers globally.
This is one of the ways in which the exploitation of capitalism is intertwined with the process of globalization - capitalism forces poorer, developing regions in a double-bind: choose either low wages or unemployment. That's why one of the arguments of right-wingers is that we should lower our wages in our country in order to attrat investors, and that if we were to increase the minimum wage too much, foreign companies would stop investing in our country. Here, the right-wingers are often right (no pun intended): they are pointing out a flaw of social democracy. But the solution here is not to go further right, but further left: classical liberals are right that trying to reform capitalism leads to disadvantages, which is why capitalism needs to be replaced with another system altogether.
One of the advantages of centralization through international cooperation is thus a higher negotiating power of the working class, achievied through international solidarity. If each country negotiates its wages individually (in other words, in a decentralized manner), the countries with higher wages will suffer from unemployment (as companies would outsource their labor where labor is cheaper), and the countries with low wages will suffer from poverty. This doesn't apply only to wages, but to working conditions in general: paid sick leave, benefits, 40 hour work week and so on. Supply chains are global now: the phone you buy was fabricated by starving children in Africa who work 60 hours per week in gruesome conditions. If capitalism is a global phenomenon, don't we need to fight fire with fire and cooperate globally?
Take another example of the double-binds of global capitalism: taxing the rich. Critics of progressive tax policies often argue that taxing the rich too heavily will lead to capital flight, as wealthy individuals relocate to tax havens with lower rates. This argument is not without merit. In a decentralized world where each country sets its own tax policies, billionaires can easily shop around for the most favorable conditions. The result? Countries either become tax havens with minimal public revenue or impose high taxes and watch the wealthy leave. Both scenarios leave governments struggling to generate sufficient funds to support public services.
How can we escape the double-bind? How do we avoid choosing between two bad outcomes? Here, centralization can help: we could envision a trans-national taxing system for example, or a mechanism in which countries get penalized by other countries if they become tax heavens. In this way, the rich will have nowhere to run since the countries cooperated together to negotiate collectively with them, in a way.
This is how a labor union works too, in principle. If each worker were to negotiate their wages individually, they would not gain much, since the employer can just choose to fire them if they threaten to leave and replace them with someone else. But what if all their employees go on a strike all at the same time? The employer will not be able to fire all of them at once. By negotiating collectively, labor unions are by their nature a centralized power structure, no matter how democratic it is.
This is not to say that centralization does not have its disadvantages as well. It can more easily lead to corruption, and it's much more unstable since if the 'center' falls, it can lead to a domino effect where the entire structure collapses. Centralization leads to a scenario where there can be too much power and responsibility in the hands of too few people - something which already happens in capitalism regularly. By centralizing too much, we risk replacing one top-down hierarchical power structure with another, and nothing would change.