What you're about to listen to is a teaser of a Patreon exclusive episode of the podcast. For this month, I gave my thoughts on the question, centralization versus decentralization, which is better for socialism? If you wanna listen to the entire episode you can go to patreon.com/theblockchainsocialist and starting at $3 per month you can become a patron and listen to these full monthly Patreon episodes and vote on the exact questions that I'll answer. So but if we think about this framework of decentralization and left, what comes to mind for me is the losses of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in The US and UK, and how their loss also caused a subsequent loss of energy in many left wing movements. To show that we were very hopeful and very dependent on the success of these high profile people. And when they didn't make it because obviously capitalism has a way or capitalists are going to do everything that they can so that they don't have a socialist joining the government, we sort of lost hope a little bit I think or and became a little bit a little bit more depressed. And we sort of moved towards, at least now I see online, really a tendency to complain about each other in, like, very almost infantile ways at times. But so when I think about especially political decentralization using the framework that Vitalik sort of outlined, this is really, I think, a pretty interesting thing to think about because, ideally, we would want to have many leaders that can take over for others whenever necessary so that whenever Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn loses, we're not we're not stuck at ground zero again. So when I say decentralization as, like, something that the left should consider more, I think partially it's about, like, growing the movement, of course. But it's also about having more people who are getting close to the levers of power. The Left tends to prop up a few leaders to represent them in politics, put a lot of hope and energy on the success of them, and then it doesn't work out, and then we don't really know where to go. So in a from a strategic standpoint, I think it makes more sense to support broad decentralized movements a whole lot more than when it comes to specific leaders. When I think about the other two types of decentralization, so architectural decentralization, what I think is, like, sort of the equivalent in the left wing movement is a mass movement and a class consciousness as a type of decentralization as it creates, not a single point of failure in that in that way. Right? Because if we if we remember architectural decentralization is about the amount of computers that a system makes up, I think we can similarly think about left wing movements and, like, how many people and how many comrades they're making up. And having, you know, a broad class consciousness in which class consciousness is decentralized and distributed amongst a lot of different people throughout, throughout your your country or or whatever you're really talking about, then you I think you are more resistant. So I think socializing and democratizing that knowledge for left wing movements in order to have people always ready to take up the mantle is really, really important. And then when it comes to logical decentralization and centrality centralization, I think it's a bit it's maybe a little bit complicated because I think right now the left is very logically decentralized because there's a lot of different tendencies and a lot of different, schools of thought in terms of achieving power, for socialism. And that's not to say I'm not, like, for or against having that. I think there's probably a good reason or a need to having this type of decentralization or to having a many different viewpoints and ideas when it comes to tackling different issues. But I think having a little bit of logical centralization could be beneficial. And what I mean by logical centralization is having militancy and discipline within your movements.