8 ms·

Well, yes. This is because both are examples of command economies and both evolve additional non-hierarchical mechanisms to achieve actual outcomes. In any lar

Well, yes. This is because both are examples of command economies and both evolve additional non-hierarchical mechanisms to achieve actual outcomes. In any large enterprise there is always a Nomenklatura who actually "make things happen". When explaining to people that trying, for the billionth time, to create The Perfect Reward Scheme won't work, I put it this way: GOSPLAN had decades, and access to unlimited men with guns and dogs, to make its plans work. And it failed.

ced 10y ago
So what's the alternative?
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Push decision making out as far as possible.
- WillAbides 10y ago
  Don't participate
Spooky23 10y ago
I've been part of that group within large organizations at a few different levels. It's both an intensely rewarding experience -- you get to fix things that are broken and get a lot of creative license. Simultaneously, it's also intensely depressing, as you get to learn how the metaphorical sausage is made.
- dingbat 10y ago
  not to discount your experience, but how do you know that your sense of being part of the core group that actually "makes things happen" isnt shared by many others who also feel that they belong to the group that really runs the place?
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    I'm sure that people feel that way. And to some extent they are correct -- ultimately they keep the trains running. But few other teams can do anything new in a reasonable period. Unfortunately I think that "truth" is a tough nut to crack in political scenarios. Perception generally rules the day, and most of these teams that play that role are successful in acquiring the trappings of corporate power -- fast action on HR, access to the decision makers/purse stringers, and perks. It doesn't last forever, because like in the Soviet system, these things depend on powerful patrons.
    - w_t_payne 10y ago
      In a world ruled by perception, how may a servant of the truth best fulfill his duty?
- singingfish 10y ago
  You mean the sausage is acutally metaphorical? I had assumed otherwise.
dingbat 10y ago
do your attempts in explaining this make any difference at all in terms of making things happen? or are they also failures?
wz1000 10y ago
> GOSPLAN had decades, and access to unlimited men with guns and dogs, to make its plans work. And it failed. I am no fan of oppressive regimes, centralised planning or Stalinism, but it always grinds my gears when people point to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the One, Absolute proof that centralised planning is always doomed to failure. While I'm sure that the hierarchy and command structure of the government and economy had their parts to play in the collapse, their importance is often overplayed by gargantuan proportions. At the time of the October Revolution, Russia was a largely agrarian society, which henceforth industrialised and developed remarkably quickly under Stalinist Five-Year-Plans, in the midst of the Great Depression. However, it was still poor and barely industrialised when it was decimated by WWII. Despite this, it recovered to become a major world power that challenged the US during its peak. US GDP has consistently been 3-5 times USSR GDP during the the latter's entire period of existence. Despite this, the pressures of the Cold War forced USSR military spending to match US spending, reaching more than 25% of GDP. Any country in a similar position would be doomed to crack under the economic strain, regardless of the structure of government or economy.
- kofejnik 10y ago
  Being able to buy toilet paper was a major win (in the '80s), that was planning economy at its finest, not military spending. Or people who had to commute from countryside to large cities to buy cheese and sausage. Source: born in the USSR.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- frozenport 10y ago
  >>doomed to crack under the economic strain Actually any normal country would not have wanted to match the US's military spending. It is precisely, this crazy, paranoid, militaristic bureaucracy that people criticize - not the mention any human rights issues.
  - wz1000 10y ago
    'Any normal country' doesn't have it's ideological basis declared US public enemy #1, and its growing influence deemed by a "crazy, paranoid militaristic bureaucracy" to be the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
kafkaesq 10y ago
GOSPLAN had decades, and access to unlimited men with guns and dogs, to make its plans work. And it failed. For a while (until the early 80s) things did work reasonably well in the Soviet Union, compared to its overall condition at the end of WW II.

ced 10y ago

So what's the alternative?

Spooky23 10y ago
Push decision making out as far as possible.
WillAbides 10y ago
Don't participate

Spooky23 10y ago

I've been part of that group within large organizations at a few different levels. It's both an intensely rewarding experience -- you get to fix things that are broken and get a lot of creative license. Simultaneously, it's also intensely depressing, as you get to learn how the metaphorical sausage is made.

dingbat 10y ago
not to discount your experience, but how do you know that your sense of being part of the core group that actually "makes things happen" isnt shared by many others who also feel that they belong to the group that really runs the place?
- Spooky23 10y ago
  I'm sure that people feel that way. And to some extent they are correct -- ultimately they keep the trains running. But few other teams can do anything new in a reasonable period. Unfortunately I think that "truth" is a tough nut to crack in political scenarios. Perception generally rules the day, and most of these teams that play that role are successful in acquiring the trappings of corporate power -- fast action on HR, access to the decision makers/purse stringers, and perks. It doesn't last forever, because like in the Soviet system, these things depend on powerful patrons.
  - w_t_payne 10y ago
    In a world ruled by perception, how may a servant of the truth best fulfill his duty?
singingfish 10y ago
You mean the sausage is acutally metaphorical? I had assumed otherwise.

dingbat 10y ago

do your attempts in explaining this make any difference at all in terms of making things happen? or are they also failures?

wz1000 10y ago

> GOSPLAN had decades, and access to unlimited men with guns and dogs, to make its plans work. And it failed. I am no fan of oppressive regimes, centralised planning or Stalinism, but it always grinds my gears when people point to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the One, Absolute proof that centralised planning is always doomed to failure. While I'm sure that the hierarchy and command structure of the government and economy had their parts to play in the collapse, their importance is often overplayed by gargantuan proportions. At the time of the October Revolution, Russia was a largely agrarian society, which henceforth industrialised and developed remarkably quickly under Stalinist Five-Year-Plans, in the midst of the Great Depression. However, it was still poor and barely industrialised when it was decimated by WWII. Despite this, it recovered to become a major world power that challenged the US during its peak. US GDP has consistently been 3-5 times USSR GDP during the the latter's entire period of existence. Despite this, the pressures of the Cold War forced USSR military spending to match US spending, reaching more than 25% of GDP. Any country in a similar position would be doomed to crack under the economic strain, regardless of the structure of government or economy.

kofejnik 10y ago
Being able to buy toilet paper was a major win (in the '80s), that was planning economy at its finest, not military spending. Or people who had to commute from countryside to large cities to buy cheese and sausage. Source: born in the USSR.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
frozenport 10y ago
>>doomed to crack under the economic strain Actually any normal country would not have wanted to match the US's military spending. It is precisely, this crazy, paranoid, militaristic bureaucracy that people criticize - not the mention any human rights issues.
- wz1000 10y ago
  'Any normal country' doesn't have it's ideological basis declared US public enemy #1, and its growing influence deemed by a "crazy, paranoid militaristic bureaucracy" to be the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

kafkaesq 10y ago

GOSPLAN had decades, and access to unlimited men with guns and dogs, to make its plans work. And it failed. For a while (until the early 80s) things did work reasonably well in the Soviet Union, compared to its overall condition at the end of WW II.